MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2119853838

Internationally Recognized Roundabout Signs

2005· article· en· W2119853838 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation research circular · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSafety Warnings and Signage
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRoundaboutWarning signsTransport engineeringControl (management)Sign (mathematics)State (computer science)Computer scienceProcess (computing)EngineeringOperations researchArtificial intelligence
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The process of navigating a roundabout involves acquiring and processing information from the geometry of the road, from pavement markings, and from signs. All three elements should be designed and located in order to minimize detection, reading and processing time, and maximize comprehension and ability for motorists to perform the tasks of navigation, guidance and vehicle control. Signs at all roundabouts should aid in detecting the presence of the roundabout ahead, deciding on a destination or exit leg, and slowing to an appropriate speed. Signs at multi-lane roundabouts should also aid in deciding on the correct entry lane. In the United States sign use is regulated through the federal Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and its state supplements. In Canada, the Canadian MUTCD and various provincial guides such as the Ontario Traffic Manual (OTM) regulate sign use. While these documents detail the application of regulatory and warning signs, they do not yet provide much guidance on specific signs exclusively used for roundabouts, in particular guide signs. This paper proposes that the principles used in designing guide signs in countries where roundabouts are more widespread than in North America be employed. This takes advantage of international expertise while still complying with regulatory and warning signs in the MUTCD. In particular, guide signing practice in the United Kingdom (U.K.) is referenced. The U.K. has pioneered the use of roundabouts, and has more complex, multi-lane designs on high-speed approaches than any other country. The roundabout guide signs discussed in this paper are the: 1. Map-Type Roundabout sign, 2. Lane Assignment sign, and 3. Flag-Type Exit sign. With use of these guide signs, this paper also makes recommendations concerning other signs currently being used at roundabouts: ROUNDABOUT AHEAD, YIELD AHEAD, YIELD, KEEP RIGHT, and ONE-WAY signs. Finally, this paper lists locations for advance signs for roundabouts, including multi-lane roundabouts.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.441
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0160.003

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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.317 · 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