MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2609751471

Swept Path Analysis on Roundabouts for Three-axle Buses - Review of the Croatian Design Guidelines

2016· article· en· W2609751471 on OpenAlexaff
Šime Bezina, Ivica Stančerić, Saša Ahac

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the International Conference on Road and Rail Infrastructure CETRA · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUrban Transport Systems Analysis
Canadian institutionsTransport Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRoundaboutAxleGeometric designTransport engineeringEngineeringComputer scienceMechanical engineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Latest edition of Croatian design guidelines for roundabouts was published in 2014, and its usage is mandatory for intersections on the state roads. This paper offers a review of aforementioned guidelines, with the emphasis on the roundabout geometric design, which are presented through several theoretical examples of suburban roundabouts with various external radii. On these roundabouts swept path analysis for tri-axle bus is conducted, and results of this analysis are commented on. This long passenger vehicle was chosen for the analysis even though it is not defined as a design vehicle in guidelines, due to the following facts: (1) Croatia is a popular tourist destination, with numerous guests arriving from distant locations, and tri-axle buses are a common mean of their transport; (2) swept path analyses have shown that the space needed by the vehicle body during the turning movements is larger for this type of vehicle, compared to design vehicles from the guidelines. Because of that, this paper presents the impact of aforementioned long passenger vehicles on the geometric design of roundabouts.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.003

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations3
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the International Conference on Road and Rail Infrastructure CETRASame topicUrban Transport Systems AnalysisFrench-language works237,207