Evaluation of Roadway Guide Signs at Pearson International Airport in Toronto, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A new terminal building resulting in the expansion of the road network was built at Pearson International Airport in Toronto, Canada. A laboratory study was carried out to assess the effectiveness of the proposed guide signs. Participants' decision times and the accuracy of the lane choices selected to reach a provided destination were measured as they responded to a sequence of road signs guiding them into and out of the airport presented on a desktop computer. The key results were as follows: participants showed high response accuracies and fast response times for signs for airport entry, the split between terminals, and the split between arrivals and departures; signs listing the airport terminals for nine airlines on each sign were associated with excessive response times; the split to parking at the arrivals–departures–parking decision point was misunderstood by one-third to one-half of drivers, who assumed that they could continue to the curbside, expecting to find parking there; and the current widely used car rental pictogram was poorly understood, and a new alternative design was preferred by participants.
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 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 | 0.017 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".