MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2063605434 · doi:10.1139/l02-014

Travel time, speed, and delay analysis using an integrated GIS/GPS system

2002· article· en· W2063605434 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ardeshir Faghri, Khaled Hamad

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic Prediction and Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDelaware Department of Transportation
KeywordsGlobal Positioning SystemComputer scienceGeographic information systemTravel timeTransport engineeringSample (material)Key (lock)Real-time computingRemote sensingTelecommunicationsGeographyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The backbone of any successful Integrated Traffic Management System (ITMS) for a metropolis is reliable, accurate, and real-time data. Travel time, speed, and delay are three of the most important factors used in ITMS for quantifying, monitoring, and controlling congestion. Global Positioning Systems (GPS) have recently become available for civil applications. As it provides real-time spatial and time measurements, it has an increasing use in conducting different transportation studies. This paper presents the application of GPS in collecting travel time, speed, and delay information on 64 major roads throughout the State of Delaware. A comparative statistical analysis was performed on data collected by GPS method, with data collected simultaneously by the conventional method. The GPS data proved to be at least as accurate as the data collected by conventional methods and was 50% more efficient in terms of manpower. Moreover, the sample-size requirement was determined to maintain 95% confidence level throughout the controlled test. Statistical trend analyses for the data collected from 1997 to 2000 are also presented and applications in the overall ITMS area are discussed.Key words: global positioning system, geographic information system, travel time and delay studies.

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 score0.868
Threshold uncertainty score0.679

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.174
Teacher spread0.164 · 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

Citations14
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicTraffic Prediction and Management TechniquesFrench-language works237,207