MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2053191111 · doi:10.3141/2329-07

Effect of Winter Weather and Road Surface Conditions on Macroscopic Traffic Parameters

2013· article· en· W2053191111 on OpenAlexaff
Tae J. Kwon, Liping Fu, Chaozhe Jiang

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic control and management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVisibilitySnowWind speedEnvironmental scienceMeteorologyRoad surfaceModel output statisticsWeather stationLinear regressionStatisticsWeather forecastingGeographyMathematicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents an empirical study focusing on identifying the main factors that affect the capacity and free-flow speed (FFS) of urban freeways under inclement winter weather conditions. The weather and road surface condition factors examined include air temperature, wind speed, hourly snow intensity, visibility, snow on ground, and road surface condition describing the road slipperiness caused mainly by snow events. Data on traffic operations and the associated weather and road conditions observed at two freeway locations over the 2010–2012 winter seasons were used in an extensive statistical analysis. Linear regression models were calibrated for both capacity and FFS reductions as related to various weather and road condition variables. It was found that visibility and road surface conditions had a statistically significant effect on both capacity and FFS. Snow intensity was found to be significant only when the visibility factor was excluded; this finding suggests a refutation of these two factors on capacity and FFS. The modeling results were compared with those recommended by the Highway Capacity Manual 2010, showing that, in many cases, the manual could underestimate or overestimate the effects of winter weather conditions and that the proposed models provided a more reasonable estimate at a higher level of granularity.

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 score0.902
Threshold uncertainty score0.602

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.296 · 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

Citations60
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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