MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2125118005 · doi:10.1287/trsc.1120.0447

Using Large Driving Record Samples and a Stochastic Approach for Real-World Driving Cycle Construction: Winnipeg Driving Cycle

2012· article· en· W2125118005 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Science · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVehicle emissions and performance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaInvenia (Canada)
FundersAUTO21 Network of Centres of ExcellenceManitoba HydroUniversity of Winnipeg
KeywordsDriving cyclePowertrainAutomotive engineeringEngineeringSample (material)Transport engineeringComputer scienceElectric vehicle

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The challenges in the development of plug-in electric vehicle (PEV) powertrains are efficient energy management and optimum energy storage, for which the role of driving cycles that represent driver behaviour is instrumental. Discrepancies between standard driving cycles and real driving behaviour stem from insufficient data collection, inaccurate cycle construction methodology, and variations because of geography. In this study, we tackle the first issue by using the collected data from real-world driving of a fleet of 76 cars for more than one year in the city of Winnipeg (Canada), representing more than 44 million data points. The second issue is addressed by a proposed novel stochastic driving cycle construction method. The third issue limits the results to mainly Winnipeg and cities that have similar features, but the methodology can be used anywhere. The methodology develops the driving cycle using snippets extracted from recorded time-stamped speed of the vehicles from the collected database. The proposed Winnipeg Driving Cycle (WPG01) characteristics are compared to eight existing standard driving cycles and are more able to represent aggressive driving, which is critical in PEV design. An attempt is made to isolate how many differences could be attributed to the sample size and the methodology. The proposed construction methodology is flexible to be optimized for any selection of driving parameters and thus can be a recommended approach to develop driving cycles for any drive train topology, including internal combustion engine vehicles, hybrid vehicles, plug-in hybrid, and battery electric vehicles. Characterization of vehicle parking durations and types of parking (home, work, shopping), critical for duty cycles for PEV powertrains, are reported elsewhere. Here, the focus is on the mathematical approach to develop a drive cycle when a large database with high resolution of driving data is available.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.422
Threshold uncertainty score0.702

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.248 · 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