MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2341316551 · doi:10.1002/atr.1373

A Cooperative Intelligent Transport Systems (C‐ITS)‐based lane‐changing advisory for weaving sections

2016· article· en· W2341316551 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Trung Mai, Rui Jiang, Edward Chung

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Transportation · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic control and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAustralian Research Council
KeywordsWeavingTransport engineeringSection (typography)Computer scienceOperations researchEngineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Weaving sections, a common design of motorways, require extensive lane‐change manoeuvres. Numerous studies have found that drivers tend to make their lane changes as soon as they enter the weaving section, as the traffic volume increases. Congestion builds up as a result of this high lane‐changing concentration. Importantly, such congestion also limits the use of existing infrastructure, the weaving section downstream. This behaviour thus affects both safety and operational aspects. The potential tool for managing motorways effectively and efficiently is cooperative intelligent transport systems (C‐ITS). This research investigates a lane‐change distribution advisory application based on C‐ITS for weaving vehicles in weaving sections. The objective of this research is to alleviate the lane‐changing concentration problem by coordinating weaving vehicles to ensure that such lane‐changing activities are evenly distributed over the existing weaving length. This is achieved by sending individual messages to drivers based on their location to advise them when to start their lane change. The research applied a microscopic simulation in aimsun to evaluate the proposed strategy's effectiveness in a one‐sided ramp weave. The proposed strategy was evaluated using different weaving advisory proportions, traffic demands and penetration rates. The evaluation revealed that the proposed lane‐changing advisory has the potential to significantly improve delay. 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 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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.839
Threshold uncertainty score0.412

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations38
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced TransportationSame topicTraffic control and managementFrench-language works237,207