MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Reliability Analysis of Minimum Pedestrian Green Interval for Traffic Signals

2013· article· en· W2106392042 on OpenAlexafffund
Said M. Easa, Jianchuan Cheng

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Transportation Engineering · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic control and management
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsIntersection (aeronautics)Interval (graph theory)PedestrianMathematicsStatisticsMoment (physics)Standard deviationEngineeringTransport engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current method of computing the minimum pedestrian green interval for intersection signal timing assumes that the component variables are deterministic. This paper presents a probabilistic method in which the pedestrian start-up time and walking speed are random variables. To establish pedestrian characteristics, data were collected at 14 intersections in downtown, suburban, and tourist areas. The method is based on a safety margin that is defined as the difference between the supplied and demanded green intervals, where the demanded green interval is a random variable. Relationships for the mean and standard deviation of the safety margin of the demanded green interval are developed on the basis of the first-order second-moment analysis. A closed-form solution for the minimum supplied green interval is then derived as a function of the relevant variables, including the vehicular intergreen interval and its component variables. A procedure for establishing the walk and the flashing “don’t walk” intervals is presented. Graphical aids for determining the minimum pedestrian green interval were developed, and application of the proposed method is illustrated using numerical examples. The sensitivity analysis shows that the minimum pedestrian green interval is much more sensitive to the walking speed than the start-up time or their correlation.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.203
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 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

Citations25
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Transportation EngineeringSame topicTraffic control and managementFrench-language works237,207