MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2027863074 · doi:10.3141/1776-21

Shock Wave and Cumulative Arrival and Departure Models: Partners Without Conflict

2001· article· en· W2027863074 on OpenAlexaff
V F Hurdle, Bongsoo Son

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic control and management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQueueTraffic congestionShock waveShock (circulatory)Computer scienceTravel timeMathematical modelTransport engineeringEconometricsOperations researchEngineeringEconomicsMathematicsStatisticsAerospace engineeringComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The shock wave and cumulative arrival and departure curve techniques are staples of traffic analysis, particularly for the modeling of freeway congestion, but the literature contains numerous suggestions that they are not compatible. Three numerical examples illustrate that although the two models define queue lengths in different ways, they are compatible, yield identical estimates of travel time and delay, and provide additional insight into the nature of freeway congestion when used together instead of individually.

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)0.002
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.555
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.112
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 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

Citations19
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research BoardSame topicTraffic control and managementFrench-language works237,207