MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2896845551 · doi:10.1155/2018/8647607

Characterization of Road Condition with Data Mining Based on Measured Kinematic Vehicle Parameters

2018· article· en· W2896845551 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Johannes Masino, Jakob Thumm, Guillaume Levasseur, Michael Frey, Frank Gauterin, Ralf Mikut, Markus Reischl

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Transportation · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInfrastructure Maintenance and Monitoring
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz, Bau und Reaktorsicherheit
KeywordsSupport vector machineToolboxComputer scienceKinematicsData miningMATLABSet (abstract data type)Interface (matter)AccelerationArtificial intelligenceGyroscopeGraphical user interfaceAccelerometerMachine learningPattern recognition (psychology)Engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This work aims at classifying the road condition with data mining methods using simple acceleration sensors and gyroscopes installed in vehicles. Two classifiers are developed with a support vector machine (SVM) to distinguish between different types of road surfaces, such as asphalt and concrete, and obstacles, such as potholes or railway crossings. From the sensor signals, frequency-based features are extracted, evaluated automatically with MANOVA. The selected features and their meaning to predict the classes are discussed. The best features are used for designing the classifiers. Finally, the methods, which are developed and applied in this work, are implemented in a Matlab toolbox with a graphical user interface. The toolbox visualizes the classification results on maps, thus enabling manual verification of the results. The accuracy of the cross-validation of classifying obstacles yields 81.0% on average and of classifying road material 96.1% on average. The results are discussed on a comprehensive exemplary data set.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.578
Threshold uncertainty score0.309

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations9
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced TransportationSame topicInfrastructure Maintenance and MonitoringFrench-language works237,207