MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2156041834 · doi:10.1139/cjce-2014-0046

Effectiveness of countermeasures to reduce vehicle speeds in freeway work zones

2014· article· en· W2156041834 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Eric Hildebrand, Daniel D. Mason

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic and Road Safety
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransport engineeringWork (physics)Work zoneEngineeringEnvironmental scienceAutomotive engineeringComputer scienceCivil engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Slowing motorists within work zones on high-speed roadways continues to be a challenge for highway authorities in all jurisdictions. Many work area traffic control manuals (WATCM) limit the speed reduction on high speed facilities to not be more than 20 km/h on the premise that a larger reduction is not practically achievable. The result is that workers on high-speed facilities are often exposed to excessive vehicle speeds in live lanes adjacent to their work sites. This study identified and evaluated supplemental traffic control countermeasures that will achieve speed reductions beyond 20 km/h. The countermeasures tested included singularly and combinations of: floating speed zones (FSZ); traffic control person (TCP); narrow lanes; radar speed display board (RSDB); variable message sign (VMS); and a fake police vehicle. The top ranked countermeasures, TCP and FSZ, fake police vehicle and FSZ, and the RSDB and FSZ, resulted in mean speed reductions of 23 km/h, 19 km/h, and 19 km/h, respectively, and typically with significant reductions in speed dispersion.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.176
Teacher spread0.171 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations7
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering→Same topicTraffic and Road Safety→French-language works237,207→