MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2026595084 · doi:10.1109/tits.2012.2234119

Potential Accuracy of Traffic Signs' Positions Extracted From Google Street View

2013· article· en· W2026595084 on OpenAlexaff
Wai Yeung Yan, Ahmed Shaker, Said M. Easa

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAutomated Road and Building Extraction
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersGoogle
KeywordsCoordinate systemSign (mathematics)Computer visionMean squared errorTransformation (genetics)Traffic signComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceMathematicsStatisticsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This work demonstrates the potential use of Google Street View (GSV) in engineering measurements. An investigation was conducted to assess the geopositioning accuracy of traffic signs extracted from GSV. A direct linear transformation (DLT) model is used to establish the relationship between the GSV image coordinate system and the ground coordinate system with the aid of ground control points (GCPs). The ground coordinates of the traffic sign can be retrieved by using the solved DLT coefficients. It is found that the root-mean-square (RMS) error of the extracted traffic sign's location is less than 1 m in general. By increasing the number of GSV images and GCPs, the RMS error can be further reduced to 0.5 m or less. This preliminary study demonstrates a viable solution to extract the location of traffic signs from GSV.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations11
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation SystemsSame topicAutomated Road and Building ExtractionFrench-language works237,207