MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2094263052 · doi:10.1139/x07-036

Improved road network design models with the consideration of various link patterns and road design elements

2007· article· en· W2094263052 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jürg Stückelberger, Hans Rudolf Heinimann, Woodam Chung

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Management and Algorithms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTerrainGridComputer scienceNetwork planning and designGraphMinimum spanning treeLink (geometry)Mathematical optimizationGrid cellTree (set theory)Representation (politics)Steiner tree problemGraph theoryField (mathematics)Path (computing)AlgorithmMathematicsTheoretical computer scienceGeographyCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The success of an automatic road network layout over steep terrain mainly depends on the model design. Most previous models have used a grid representation that considers only eight adjacent cells when evaluating feasible road links. Here, we present improved models and alignment constraints mapped on a mathematical graph for better designs that are more applicable under field conditions. We have refined the link pattern by considering up to 48 neighbouring cells and have introduced 16 directional classes per grid cell. Optimization techniques, such as shortest path, minimum spanning tree, and Steiner minimum tree algorithms, are used on the graph to derive a road network that is optimal in terms of its construction costs. These improved models have been applied to different mountainous project areas. Our results show that, by considering various link patterns and alignment constraints, one can determine more appropriate and cost-effective locations for road networks, especially in steep terrain.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Citations30
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicData Management and AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207