MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2595317974

Improved Models for User Cost Analysis

2008· article· en· W2595317974 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tony G. Geara

Bibliographic record

VenueOhioLink ETD Center (Ohio Library and Information Network) · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUrban and Freight Transport Logistics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersIndiana Department of TransportationMontana Department of TransportationWashington State UniversityColorado Department of TransportationMinnesota Department of TransportationFederal Highway AdministrationWashington State Department of TransportationArkansas Department of TransportationMichigan Department of TransportationU.S. Department of Transportation
KeywordsComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The user costs include the costs borne by highway users such as additional travel time costs, crash costs, costs of operating vehicles in work zone conditions, and environmental costs.The pavement type selection process currently used by Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) does not include user costs quantitatively.This thesis provides a comprehensive review of literature and tools used to calculate user costs.The results of a questionnaire survey on the role played by user costs in pavement type selection processes of various state and regional agencies in US and Canada are provided.Based on the findings from literature review and questionnaire survey, this thesis investigates and provides recommendations for including user delay costs quantitatively in Ohio DOT"s pavement type selection process.Two case studies presented in this thesis illustrate the methods recommended in this thesis and their applicability to real life scenarios.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.094

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0280.004

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.180
Teacher spread0.163 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOhioLink ETD Center (Ohio Library and Information Network)Same topicUrban and Freight Transport LogisticsFrench-language works237,207