MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2064023337 · doi:10.3141/1774-10

Development of Canadian Architecture for Intelligent Transportation Systems

2001· article· en· W2064023337 on OpenAlexaffabout
Helena L. Borges, Geoffrey Knapp, Bruce S Eisenhart

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic Prediction and Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsIBI Group (Canada)Transport Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArchitectureStakeholderReference architectureArchitecture frameworkEnterprise architecture frameworkSystems architectureIntelligent transportation systemDatabase-centric architectureComputer scienceEngineeringProcess managementTransport engineeringEngineering managementSoftware architectureEconomicsManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Under the guidance of a steering committee of public- and private-sector representatives from the Canadian transportation industry, the development of the Canadian Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) Architecture was initiated in August 1999. In general, the Canadian effort subsumes all of the U.S. National ITS Architecture work and extends and modifies it to provide new services and areas of coverage and to reflect differences between the nations and the existence of new and different stakeholders. Since there is much commonality between the technical definitions of the two architectures, it is important to understand the explicit relationships. The development of the Canadian ITS Architecture is examined, and the differences between the architectures of the United States and Canada are illustrated. The development included an extensive review of other relevant ITS architecture and standards initiatives. On the basis of the review and significant ITS stakeholder input, an initial draft ITS architecture framework was developed that defined the user services, user subservices, and market packages applicable to Canada. After a review by ITS stakeholders, the revised ITS architecture framework was used to develop definitions of both the physical and the logical architectures of the Canadian ITS Architecture. The follow-up support activities anticipated for the Canadian ITS Architecture are reviewed, and the potential for iterative development with the U.S. National ITS Architecture is examined.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score0.439

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0060.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations5
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research BoardSame topicTraffic Prediction and Management TechniquesFrench-language works237,207