Effect of road width and traffic volume on vehicular interactions in heterogeneous traffic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SUMMARY Highway traffic flow phenomena involve several complex and stochastic variables with high interdependencies. The variations in roadway, traffic and environmental factors influence the traffic flow quality significantly. Capacity analysis of road sections under different traffic and geometric conditions need to quantify the vehicles of widely varying characteristics to a common and universally acceptable unit. Passenger car unit (PCU) is the universally adopted unit of traffic volume, keeping the passenger car as the ‘standard vehicle’ with reference to its static and dynamic characteristics; other vehicles are expressed to its equivalent number in terms of PCUs. The studies carried out in this aspect represent the dynamic nature of impedance caused by a vehicle while moving through a traffic stream. The PCU values recommended by the Highway Capacity Manual are widely applied in many countries; however, their applicability is highly under debate because of the variations in prevailing local traffic conditions. There are several factors that influence the PCU values such as traffic, roadway, vehicle, environmental and control conditions, etc. Apart from vehicular characteristics, the other two major factors that influence the PCU of vehicles are the following: (i) road width and (ii) traffic volume. In this study, estimation of PCU values for the different types of vehicles of a highly heterogeneous traffic on 7.5‐ and 11.0‐m‐wide roads, using micro‐simulation technique, has been dealt with. It has been found that the PCU value of a vehicle type varies significantly with variation in road width and traffic volume. The results of the study indicate that the PCU values are significantly influenced by the said two factors. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".