MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2339945052 · doi:10.15760/trec.23

Wireless Data Collection System for Real-Time Arterial Travel Time Estimates: Final Report

2011· report· en· W2339945052 on OpenAlexfundno aff
David Kim

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBluetooth and Wireless Communication Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersOregon Department of TransportationMcGill UniversityU.S. Department of Transportation
KeywordsData collectionTravel timeBluetoothSoftware deploymentReal-time computingAntenna (radio)Real-time dataComputer scienceWirelessTransport engineeringTelecommunicationsEngineeringStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This project pursued several objectives conducive to the implementation and testing of a Bluetooth (BT) based system to collect travel time data, including the deployment of a BT-based travel time data collection system to perform comprehensive testing on all the components. Two different BT-based travel time data collection systems were installed. The first system, composed of two DCUs, was installed on a corridor located in Salem, OR. Extensive testing was done on this system, including the collection of travel time samples. A second system composed of five DCUs was installed along 99W in the city of Tigard, OR. Very limited data collection was done on 99W due to the lack of network connectivity. Six different antenna types were characterized using the two DCU BT-based travel time data collection system. The result of the antenna characterization tests showed that vertically polarized antennas with gains between 9 and 12 dBi are good candidates to support a BT-based travel time data collection system. Antennas with circular polarization do not seem to improve the performance, despite the lack of control regarding the orientation of BT enabled devices in most applications. Travel time samples were also collected with this system. The results indicate that a trade-off exist between the number of samples obtained and the accuracy of these travel time samples. This trade-off is most likely the result of differences in road coverage areas provided by the different antenna types.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.005

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 head0.120
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations8
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBluetooth and Wireless Communication TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207