MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Use of <i>n</i>-Fold Cross-Validation to Evaluate Three Methods to Calculate Heavy Truck Annual Average Daily Traffic and Vehicle Miles Traveled

2007· article· en· W2067984842 on OpenAlexaff
Shauna Hallmark, Reginald R. Souleyrette, Stephen Lamptey

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Air & Waste Management Association · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVehicle emissions and performance
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Transportation of Ontario
FundersIowa Department of Transportation
KeywordsTruckTraffic countTraffic volumeVehicle miles of travelTransport engineeringEnvironmental scienceStatisticsEngineeringMathematicsAutomotive engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reliable estimates of heavy-truck volumes in the United States are important in a number of transportation applications including pavement design and management, traffic safety, and traffic operations. Additionally, because heavy vehicles emit pollutants at much higher rates than passenger vehicles, reliable volume estimates are critical to computing accurate inventories of on-road emissions. Accurate baseline inventories are also necessary to forecast future scenarios. The research presented in this paper evaluated three different methods commonly used by transportation agencies to estimate annual average daily traffic (AADT), which is used to determine vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Traffic data from continuous count stations provided by the Iowa Department of Transportation were used to estimate AADT for single-unit and multiunit trucks for rural freeways and rural primary highways using the three methods. The first method developed general expansion factors, which apply to all vehicles. AADT, representing all vehicles, was estimated for short-term counts and was multiplied by statewide average truck volumes for the corresponding roadway type to obtain AADT for each truck category. The second method also developed general expansion factors and AADT estimates. Truck AADT for the second method was calculated by multiplying the general AADT by truck volumes from the short-term counts. The third method developed expansion factors specific to each truck group. AADT estimates for each truck group were estimated from short-term counts using corresponding expansion factors. Accuracy of the three methods was determined by comparing actual AADT from count station data to estimates from the three methods. Accuracy of the three methods was compared using n-fold cross-validation. Mean squared error of prediction was used to estimate the difference between estimated and actual AADT. Prediction error was lowest for the method that developed separate expansion factors for trucks. Implications for emissions estimation using the different methods are also discussed.

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)0.065
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.054
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score0.342

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0650.054
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.004
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 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

Citations5
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Air & Waste Management AssociationSame topicVehicle emissions and performanceFrench-language works237,207