Evaluation of Football Shaped Rumble Strips Versus Rectangular Rumble Strips
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Shoulder and centerline rumble strips have become predominantly used safety measures along American highways in almost all states and in Canadian provinces. Milled shoulder rumble strips are cut indentations along the shoulder of a highway to warn drivers with an audible and tactile alert if they start drifting off the road. Centerline rumble strips are similar, but are placed between lanes, usually on undivided two-way, two-lane highways, to warn drivers who may start drifting into oncoming traffic. Researchers at Kansas State University (KSU) have conducted research on a new football-shaped highway rumble strip designed by an independent firm in Kansas. Test strips were installed along a Kansas highway, and the KSU research team conducted several tests to evaluate the new football shaped rumble strip versus the rectangular rumble strip. The comparison consisted of water and debris collection, interior sound and vibration production, and the opinions of bicyclists.Based on the literature review, the limited tests performed, and the surveys conducted, it can be concluded that no significant difference was found between the two types of rumble strips.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".