MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2163078354 · doi:10.1109/mshs.2005.1502566

Route tracking of border crossing vehicles using inductance signatures of loop detectors

2005· article· en· W2163078354 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
T.M. Kwon

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBlind Source Separation Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInduction loopDetectorTracking (education)Homeland securityVehicle tracking systemComputer scienceInductanceIdentification (biology)Real-time computingFocus (optics)Transport engineeringEngineeringTelecommunicationsElectrical engineeringGeographyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Monitoring border-crossing vehicles has been one of the focus areas of the Department of Homeland Security since its inception. The USA has a total of 7,514 land miles of borders with Canada and Mexico, and more than 140 million vehicles enter the US border every year. The vehicles then travel using a part of 4 million miles of available US public roads. Monitoring and tracking so many vehicles is a huge challenge and requires automated non-intrusive computerized technology. The paper proposes a new way of tracking vehicle routes through vehicle sensors that exist in the US transportation infrastructure. In most US highways and local roads, inductive loop detectors (ILDs) are embedded in the pavement to monitor traffic conditions, and the number of installations is constantly increasing. The paper introduces a method that utilizes the inductive signatures of vehicles generated by ILDs for vehicle identification and tracking. Signal processing techniques of inductance signatures and the experimental results on a highway data are presented.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.001

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.293 · 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

Citations5
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBlind Source Separation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207