MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2109413269 · doi:10.3141/1771-23

Comparison of Three Methods for Dynamic Network Loading

2001· article· en· W2109413269 on OpenAlexafffund
Vittorio Astarita, K. Er-Rafia, Michaël Florian, Michael Mahut, Shane Velan

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic control and management
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCell Transmission ModelComputer scienceTraffic simulationTraffic generation modelNetwork modelMathematical modelMesoscopic physicsTraffic flow (computer networking)Variety (cybernetics)SimulationData miningEngineeringTraffic congestionTransport engineeringArtificial intelligenceMicrosimulationReal-time computingMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Interest in temporal modeling of road traffic has increased over the past decade because of the need to model traffic dynamics for the purpose of evaluating a variety of intelligent transportation components, such as traffic control measures and route guidance. Several approaches are available, including macroscopic, mesoscopic, and microscopic traffic models as well as analytical dynamic assignment models. Although microscopic models are the most detailed and realistic, they are difficult to calibrate and may not be the most practical tools for large-scale networks. Three methods for dynamic network loading that are considerably less detailed than microscopic modeling are investigated here. Each of the three methods is based on a different approach to modeling traf-fic dynamics: link-based travel time functions, the cell-transmission model, and a link-based model derived from a simplified car-following relationship. A small test network was devised, and the results from each model were compared with those obtained from a microsimulator (INTEGRATION). Interpretation of the discrepancies observed in the results gave an indication of the relative importance of the different components of the three traffic models.

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)0.005
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 score0.716
Threshold uncertainty score0.988

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.110
GPT teacher head0.441
Teacher spread0.332 · 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

Citations38
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research BoardSame topicTraffic control and managementFrench-language works237,207