MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2073905081 · doi:10.2495/sdp-v5-n3-238-252

Assessment of speed-flow-density functions under adverse pavement condition

2010· article· en· W2073905081 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Johnnie Ben-Edigbe

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic control and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdverse weatherDaylightTraffic flow (computer networking)Road surfaceEnvironmental scienceFlow (mathematics)MeteorologyMathematicsComputer scienceEngineeringGeographyCivil engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many of the speed, flow and density relationships postulated in different literatures are based on empirical evidences collected under favourable conditions. Those that veered into comparative analysis under contrasting conditions often use forced curves to describe the relationship between speed and flow mainly because the graph is not a function. However, the paper is an attempt to postulate that dynamic speed-flow, speed-density and flow-density functions have similar behavioural pattern. In the study, speed and flow relationship under adverse road surface condition depicted with potholes and edge subsidence among others was investigated. The study was carried out in Nigeria where adverse road surface condition on principal roads is prevalent under daylight, dry weather and off-peak conditions. It is based on the hypothesis that adverse road surface condition has significant impact on otherwise uninterrupted traffic stream. The paper compared empirical survey data from 11 locations on roadway segments with control and adverse sections. Optimum speeds for control and adverse road sections were estimated and compared. The study found 50% reduction in optimum speed and concluded that significant speed reduction will occur under adverse road surface condition.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.845
Threshold uncertainty score0.335

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations24
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Sustainable Development and PlanningSame topicTraffic control and managementFrench-language works237,207