MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2141035746 · doi:10.3141/1886-04

Using Decision Trees to Improve the Accuracy of Vehicle Signature Reidentification

2004· article· en· W2141035746 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Mining Algorithms and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInduction loopDecision treeSignature (topology)Vehicle tracking systemComputer scienceTree (set theory)DetectorProcess (computing)Tracking (education)Work (physics)Data miningArtificial intelligenceEngineeringMathematicsSegmentationTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Vehicle reidentification is the process of tracking a vehicle along a highway as it crosses detection stations. Inductive loop detectors are by far the most widely deployed vehicle detectors. In the present work, vehicle reidentification is performed by combining vehicle-specific information (length and electromagnetic signatures) and some contextual information (lane, speed, and time) to form a decision tree. This approach provides a specific decision tree for tracking vehicles along each highway section. After training, the decision tree successfully classified about 95% of the unseen test records—a significant improvement relative to the literature and our own previous work on the same data. This success rate has been consistently obtained from two data sets: one consisting only of passenger vehicles and another consisting of a representative traffic mix.

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)0.005
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 score0.873
Threshold uncertainty score0.883

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0030.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.107
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.308 · 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