MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2165306508 · doi:10.3141/2421-08

Mechanism of Early-Onset Breakdown at On-Ramp Bottlenecks on Shanghai, China, Expressways

2014· article· en· W2165306508 on OpenAlexaff
Jian Sun, Li Zhao, H. Michael Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic control and management
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Education and Child Care
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBottleneckQueueAccelerationFlow (mathematics)Environmental scienceChinaTransport engineeringGeographyEngineeringComputer scienceMechanicsPhysicsOperations management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The mechanism of early-onset breakdowns was studied at on-ramp bottlenecks on expressways in Shanghai, China. From four on-ramp breakdown events captured on video, key parameters were extracted: prequeue flow, queue-discharge flow, speed variation per minute, lane change (LC) times in the mainline lanes and the acceleration lane, LC types, and LC locations (longitudinal and lateral). A total of 1,583 LC samples were analyzed. The findings showed a great difference in LC patterns when breakdowns occurred earlier than normal (i.e., before the bottleneck reaches expected capacity). In the case of an early breakdown, most LCs were forced LCs that occurred near the downstream end of the bottleneck, which spread laterally rather quickly. In contrast, in normal breakdowns in the United States, LCs were mostly free LCs that occurred evenly along the bottleneck longitudinally but were concentrated in rightmost lanes laterally.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.087

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.264 · 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

Citations34
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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