MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2551028016 · doi:10.1504/ijssca.2016.10001440

A DMAIC-based methodology for improving urban traffic quality with application for city of Montreal

2016· article· en· W2551028016 on OpenAlexaffabout
Zhong Hua Zhang, Anjali Awasthi

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Six Sigma and Competitive Advantage · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic Prediction and Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTraffic congestionDMAICTransport engineeringQuality (philosophy)Descriptive statisticsService qualityComputer scienceSix SigmaEngineeringService (business)BusinessOperations managementStatisticsMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Traffic congestion is a severe problem in cities. Drivers spend hours going through the traffic. This results not only in driver fatigue but also vehicular emissions, noise and pollutants into the environment. Controlling the situation of congestion in cities is of vital importance to city transport organisations and traffic decision-makers. In this paper, we propose a DMAIC-based methodology for improving the quality of urban traffic. The proposed methodology comprises of three steps. In Step 1, we conduct a survey study to collect traffic congestion data in the city. In Step 2, DMAIC methodology is applied to analyse the survey data collected from Step 1. The techniques used are Descriptive statistics, Pareto analysis, Cause-Effect Diagram, Factor Analysis, and Control Charts (Individual and Multivariate). In the third step, we generate recommendations for reducing traffic congestion and ameliorating transportation service quality in cities based on results of Steps 1 and 2. The proposed work is novel and has practical applicability in managing the situation of traffic congestion in cities. An application of the proposed approach for city of Montreal is provided.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.853
Threshold uncertainty score0.242

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Six Sigma and Competitive AdvantageSame topicTraffic Prediction and Management TechniquesFrench-language works237,207