MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2241927039

ANALYSIS OF ROAD WEATHER INFORMATION SYSTEM USERS IN CALIFORNIA AND MONTANA

2004· article· en· W2241927039 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation research circular · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicWeb Applications and Data Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransport engineeringComputer scienceBusinessEngineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A road weather information system (RWIS)--a network of weather stations, forecasting services, and the supporting infrastructure--has been used widely in the United States and Canada since the late 1980s. Through separate projects with Montana Department of Transportation (DOT) and California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Western Transportation Institute (WTI) collected information from road weather information users through surveys and interviews. Montana DOT's survey, completed in September 2000, received responses from 89 Montana DOT maintenance personnel. WTI conducted the Caltrans study in January 2002, and received responses from maintenance and traffic operations staff representing 11 of the 12 districts. Although not identical, the surveys included questions in similar categories, including training; current use, methods, and data; station siting; and accuracy. This paper summarizes the RWIS operations and user opinions in California and Montana and compares them with those reported by Wyoming DOT in 1998. Specifically, this analysis discusses: RWIS user profiles; station siting and networking; weather information improvement ideas; perceived current and potential usefulness; training; and traffic operations and maintenance usage. The objective of this analysis is to identify nationally applicable RWIS trends or improvements. The information in this paper will be of interest and benefit to transportation officials who wish to gain a better understanding of users' perspectives on RWIS, identify areas of improvement for a state's RWIS, and learn about related experiences from other states.

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.

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)0.001
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 score0.821
Threshold uncertainty score0.706

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.262 · 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