MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2105436281 · doi:10.1139/l07-071

Modeling of freeway breakdown process with log-periodic oscillations

2007· article· en· W2105436281 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Shy Bassan, Abishai Polus, Ardeshir Faghri

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic control and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlow (mathematics)Traffic flow (computer networking)MechanicsProcess (computing)Volumetric flow ratePlane (geometry)Environmental scienceSimulationMeteorologyMathematicsEngineeringPhysicsComputer scienceGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Urban and suburban freeways are designed to allow smooth traffic flow at high speed. However, when traffic demand is high or during irregular events, significant congestion may develop. Traffic breakdown occurs during the phase transition from dense congested stable (DCS) flow to breakdown flow. In this study, the process of freeway flow breakdown was investigated by calibrating models in the density–time plane using morning peak data from Interstate 66, a US highway connecting Washington, D.C., and Virginia. It was shown that the models, which describe the collective behavior of drivers using the mathematical property of the log-periodic oscillations (LPO) process, reflect suitably the phase transition in freeway traffic flow. The LPO process has been used in the past to model stock market crashes and the occurrences of large earthquakes. The cyclic properties of the LPO models developd in this study were found to identify the “critical transition period,” which triggers the traffic breakdown process. This period starts when the density rate of change reaches its maximum during the first cycle that follows the DCS flow regime. This triggers a breakdown of flow conditions, which occur 5–8 min after the density rate of change has achieved its maximum.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.669
Threshold uncertainty score0.905

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.167
Teacher spread0.162 · 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 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

Citations3
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicTraffic control and managementFrench-language works237,207