MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2123184120 · doi:10.1139/l06-151

Locating changeable message signs for advanced traffic information and management systems

2007· article· en· W2123184120 on OpenAlexfundvenueaboutno aff
Liping Fu, Jeffrey Henderson, Shuo Li

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTransportation Planning and Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceQueueing theoryKey (lock)Sensitivity (control systems)Quality (philosophy)Operations researchDistributed computingTransport engineeringEngineeringComputer networkComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents an optimization model for locating changeable message signs (CMSs) on an integrated freeway-arterial network. Compared with existing models, the proposed model represents a well-balanced compromise between computational efficiency required to solve problems of realistic size, and model realism to ensure the quality of solutions. The model has three unique features: (1) it recognizes that locating CMSs is a planning problem that must take into account both current and future needs and benefits, (2) it evaluates benefits of CMSs over multiple time periods with different traffic distributions, and (3) it explicitly considers inherent variations in incident characteristics across links and over time. A sensitivity analysis is performed to examine the potential impacts on optimal CMSs locations resulting from uncertainties in various input parameters, such as traffic demand, incident attributes, and driver behaviour. Lastly, the proposed model is applied to the Highway 401 express-collector freeway system in Toronto for relocating the existing CMSs.Key words: changeable message signs (CMSs), location optimization, traffic assignment, queuing theory.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.950
Threshold uncertainty score0.951

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations8
Published2007
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicTransportation Planning and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207