MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2159752392 · doi:10.3141/1883-14

Some Properties of Flows at Freeway Bottlenecks

2004· article· en· W2159752392 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lei Zhang, David Levinson

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic control and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBottleneckQueueTwin citiesUpstream (networking)Queueing theoryStatisticsConstant (computer programming)Environmental scienceTransport engineeringMathematicsComputer scienceGeographyEngineeringOperations managementMetropolitan areaTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The capacity of a freeway segment should be measured only when it is an active bottleneck. The properties of flows at active freeway bottlenecks have a bearing on both the definition of capacity and the procedure of capacity analysis. Past studies have examined the flow features at bottlenecks on several freeways in Toronto, Canada, and San Diego, California. This study examined 27 active bottlenecks in the Twin Cities metro area in Minnesota for a 7-week period. The analysis focuses on the properties of prequeue transition flows (PQFs) and queue discharge flows (QDFs) averaged across various time intervals (30-s, daily average, and long-run average). It is found that the proportion by which flows drop after upstream queues form at all studied bottlenecks ranges from 2% to 11%. The 30-s QDFs display high variation and should not be assumed to be constant. The daily average QDFs at each studied bottleneck follow a normal distribution based on two normality tests and visual inspection of the normal probability plot. Results also suggest that the long-run average QDFs [mean of 2,016 passenger cars per lane per hour (pcplph)] and PQFs (mean of 2,124 pcplph) are both normally distributed. The implication of these empirical findings on capacity estimation is also discussed.

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)0.002
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 score0.823
Threshold uncertainty score0.986

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 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

Citations5
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research BoardSame topicTraffic control and managementFrench-language works237,207