MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2154262169

Fusion of Disaggregate Event Records from Uncoordinated Traffic Detectors: A Case Study in Detector Performance Verification

2015· article· en· W2154262169 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Joshua Stipancic, Luis Miranda-Moreno

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Research Board 94th Annual MeetingTransportation Research Board · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic Prediction and Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceDetectorReal-time computingSensor fusionEvent (particle physics)Matching (statistics)RadarGround truthSet (abstract data type)Data setVolume (thermodynamics)Data miningArtificial intelligenceTelecommunications
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Though temporally aggregate traffic data has several troubling issues, a shift to disaggregate data has been inhibited by the necessary volume of microscopic vehicle data, which is often unavailable to practitioners. New mobile traffic sensors, including video, radar, and electromagnetic devices, have relieved this constraint. While the flexibility of such mobile systems is considered an advantage, coordinating these devices is difficult in practice. It is desired to maintain the advantages of these new technologies while providing a simple means of matching individual detection records between multiple sensors through data fusion. The purpose of this paper is to present an algorithm for fusing disaggregate detection event records from uncoordinated traffic detection devices. Detector data was collected at two urban sites within Montreal, Quebec using one wireless plate magnetometer per lane and one microwave radar detector per site. Video footage was collected to facilitate the creation of a ground truth data set. The algorithm was designed to include a time threshold and a moving average for time compensation, which enabled synchronization between the uncoordinated devices. Results from the algorithm were compared to a ground truth data set created manually. The time compensating algorithm with a time threshold of 1.5 seconds provided the highest rate of correct matches, with greater than 96% of event pairs matching those from the manually generated data set. A case study demonstrated the application of the matching algorithm in automated detector performance verification.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.342
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.287 · 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.

Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransportation Research Board 94th Annual MeetingTransportation Research BoardSame topicTraffic Prediction and Management TechniquesFrench-language works237,207