MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2010324073 · doi:10.1002/atr.5670350105

Developing freeway lane‐changing support systems using artificial neural networks

2001· article· en· W2010324073 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Chien‐Hung Wei

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Transportation · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic Prediction and Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial neural networkComputer scienceField (mathematics)Context (archaeology)PerceptionArtificial intelligenceIntelligent transportation systemControl (management)EngineeringTransport engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Lane‐changing involves many concerns about safety and efficiency which makes it one of the most difficult tasks of driving. It is indeed quite personal since drivers operate vehicles according to their integrated perception of comprehensive circumstances rather than individual rules. A lane‐changing decision support model is developed in this study using artificial neural networks (ANN). The advantages of the ANN approach lie in the learning capability. Due to its nature, an ANN model can consolidate various kinds of information surrounding the vehicle for the drivers and generate reliable results to help control vehicles. It then becomes a useful mechanism to assist drivers in judging current situations and making the right decisions. Several preliminary validations and comparisons are conducted with the field survey data. It is confirmed that the ANN model mimics traffic characteristics more accurately than conventional methods. This product would expedite the implementation of relevant applications in the intelligent transportation systems context. In particular, the ANN model can be adapted to individual driver characteristics. This reveals practical feasibility and significant market potential for customized in‐vehicle equipment.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.721
Threshold uncertainty score0.450

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.228 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced TransportationSame topicTraffic Prediction and Management TechniquesFrench-language works237,207