Including heavy vehicles in a car‐following model: modelling, calibrating and validating
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Heavy vehicles influence general traffic in many different ways compared with passenger vehicles, and this may result in different levels of traffic instability. Increases in the number and proportion of heavy vehicles in the traffic stream will therefore result in different traffic flow conditions. This research initially outlines the different car‐following behaviour of drivers in congested heterogeneous traffic conditions indicating the necessity for developing a car‐following model, which includes these differences. A psychophysical car‐following model, similar in form to Weideman's car‐following model, was developed. Due to the complexity of the developed model, the calibration of the model was undertaken using a particle swarm optimisation algorithm with the data recorded under congested traffic conditions. This was then incorporated into a traffic microsimulation model. The results showed that the car‐following perceptual thresholds and thus action points of drivers differ based on their vehicle and the lead vehicle types. The inclusion of the heavy vehicles in the model showed significant impacts on the traffic dynamic and interactions amongst different vehicles. 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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".