Model for the capacity of the urban signal intersection with work zone
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Work zones exist widely on urban arterials in the cities that are undergoing road construction or maintenance. However, the existing studies on arterial work zones are very limited, especially on the work zones at urban intersections, although they have a severe negative impact on the urban traffic system. For the first time, this study focuses on how work zones reduce intersection capacity. A type of widely observed work zone, the straddling work zone that straddles on a road segment and an intersection, is studied. A linear regression model and a multiplicative model suggested by Highway Capacity Manual are proposed respectively to determine the saturation flow rate of the signal intersection with the straddling work zone. The data of 22 straddling work zones are collected and used to evaluate the performances of the proposed models. The results display that the linear regression model outperforms the multiplicative model suggested by Highway Capacity Manual. The study also reveals that reducing approach (or exit) lanes and the mixture of motor vehicles and non‐motor vehicles (and pedestrians) can significantly decrease the capacity of the intersection with straddling work zone. Therefore, in setting a straddling work zone, workers should try to ensure that the intersection approach and exit are unobstructed and set a separation for non‐motors and pedestrians to avoid mixed traffic flow. 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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".