Impact of Guideline Markings on Saturation Flow Rate at Signalized Intersections
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many intersections around the world are irregular crossings where the approach and exit lanes are offset or the two roads cross at oblique angles. These irregular intersections often confuse drivers and greatly affect operational efficiency. Although guideline markings are recommended in many design manuals and codes on traffic signs and markings to address these problems, the effectiveness and application conditions are ambiguous. The research goal was to analyze the impact of guideline markings on the saturation flow rate at signalized intersections. An adjustment estimation model was established based on field data collected at 33 intersections in Shanghai, China. The proposed model was validated using a before–after case study. The underlying reasons for the impact of intersection guideline markings on the saturation flow rate are discussed. The results reveal that the improvement in the saturation flow rate obtained from painting guide line markings is positively correlated with the number of traffic lanes, offset of through movement, and turning angle of left-turns. On average, improvements of 7.0% and 10.3% can be obtained for through and left-turn movements, respectively.
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 | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".