Using stop bar detector information to determine turning movement proportions in shared lanes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Turning vehicle volumes at signalized intersections are critical inputs for various transportation studies such as level of service, signal timing, and traffic safety analysis. There are various types of detectors installed at signalized intersections for control and operation. These detectors have the potential of producing volume estimates. However, it is quite a challenge to use such detectors for conducting turning movement counts in shared lanes. The purpose of this paper was to provide three methods to estimate turning movement proportions in shared lanes. These methods are characterized as flow characteristics (FC), volume and queue (VQ) length, and network equilibrium (NE). FC and VQ methods are based on the geometry of an intersection and behavior of drivers. The NE method does not depend on these factors and is purely based on detector counts from the study intersection and the downstream intersection. These methods were tested using regression and genetic programming (GP). It was found that the hourly average error ranged between 4 and 27% using linear regression and 1 to 15% using GP. A general conclusion was that the proposed methods have the potential of being applied to locations where appropriate detectors are installed for obtaining the required data. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".