MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2326148387

How Pavement Markings Influence Bicycle and Motor Vehicle Positioning: A Case Study in Cambridge, MA

2005· article· en· W2326148387 on OpenAlexaff
Ron Van Houten, Cara Seiderman

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Transport and Accessibility
Canadian institutionsMount Saint Vincent University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransport engineeringIntersection (aeronautics)Engineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to determine how pavement markings influence bicyclist and motorist positioning, particularly how far bicyclists travel from parked cars. The research examined the effects of sequentially adding the component markings of a bike lane on a road (Hampshire St.) with on-street parking in the city of Cambridge, MA. Data measured were the distance cars parked from the curb, the distance bicyclists rode from the curb, and the distance traveling motor vehicles drove from the curb. The data on bicyclists and moving motor vehicles were gathered by videotape. The three pavement marking treatments – an edge line demarcating the travel lane, the edge line and bicycle symbols, and a full bike lane – were all effective at influencing bicyclists to ride farther away from parked cars than when no pavement markings were present. The analysis examined the percentage of cyclists riding 9 and 10 feet out from the curb. These distances were used as benchmarks for how far cyclists should ride so as to be farther from the “door” zone of a parked car. All three treatments significantly increased the percentage of cyclists riding more than 9 and 10 feet from the curb. There was variation at the measurement sites near the signalized intersection vs. measurement sites near uncontrolled intersections, with higher increases near the signalized locations. “Before” and “after” intercept surveys of cyclists and motorists were administered. Cyclists during baseline most often responded that the best way to improve bicycling on Hampshire St. was to add bike lanes. Cyclists also rated the full bike lane most favorably in the “after” survey. There was no change in comfort level rated on 5-point scale between baseline and the end of the study surveys. When motorists were asked what made them most aware of cyclists on the street, the most common response during the “before” condition was “nothing.” In the “after” survey, the most common response was “the bike lane.” Ron Van Houten & Cara Seiderman 3

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)0.006
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 score0.269
Threshold uncertainty score0.536

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.273 · 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

Citations14
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicUrban Transport and AccessibilityFrench-language works237,207