Comparing Performances of Turbo-roundabouts and Double-lane Roundabouts
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Starting from assumptions regarding the arrival process of circulating streams and according to models based on the gap-acceptance theory, the paper is aimed at comparing operational performances between basic turbo-roundabouts and double-lane roundabouts. The paper proposes applications of the Hagring model for entry capacity estimations at double-lane roundabouts and turbo-roundabouts, these latter, in particular, featured by movements with only one or two conflicting traffic streams. This model allows to use, in fact, a bunched exponential distribution to quantify the distribution of major vehicle headways; it also considers specific values different by each lane for behavioural parameters, minimum headway and conflicting traffic flow on circulating lanes. The results obtained for the two cases examined, although influenced by the underlying assumptions, especially with regard to user behaviour at turbo-roundabouts, can give information about the convenience in choosing, at a design level, a basic turbo-roundabout rather than a double-lane roundabout. The comparison developed in this paper, indeed, can be helpful in selecting the type of roundabout and in particular in evaluating performance benefits that are obtainable from the conversion of an existing double-lane roundabout to a turbo-roundabout with similar footprint of space.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it