Improving Safety in Canaad's Oil Sands with Temporary Signal Lights
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Supporting transportation infrastructure for Canada’s oil sands operations is a challenging task at the best of times, where items such as extraordinarily large equipment, atypical modal splits and non-standard peak period travel patterns ensures that any transportation design requires special consideration. Continued growth and production at a major oil sands site in northern Alberta has resulted in a substantial amount of vehicular traffic travelling on site 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. This growth has resulted in inefficient operations at one of the major intersections on site. Currently this intersection is stop-controlled during non-peak periods. During peak periods, manual control in the form of flaggers is brought in to direct traffic in order to improve efficiency. Although the flaggers facilitate and improve movements through this intersection, there are evident safety concerns noted having laborers working in such close proximity to the roadway as well as subjecting them to the harsh northern elements. Due to these safety concerns and on-going operational costs, Stantec was acquired to conduct a scoping study of the area of concern. Results of the scoping study recommend traffic signals for this intersection. Since this would mark the first signalized intersection on site, our client sought further assurance that a signalized intersection would – at a minimum – maintain current levels of service through the intersection before making the long-term investment in a permanent system. In order to test the effectiveness of signals on the intersection, an 8-week trial was conducted with portable traffic lights. This paper will review and summarize the portable traffic lights trial, how it performed and its effect on safety at the intersection. The usefulness of portable traffic lights as an interim solution prior to the implementation of permanent installations will also be reviewed.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".