Evaluation effects of two types of freeway deceleration markings in China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents an evaluation of the effectiveness of two types of deceleration markings on freeways in China: fishbone-shaped (FS) markings and edge-rate (ER) markings. An actual 4-lane, 6-km long freeway in Province Hebei was created in a driving simulator and used for the experiments. Three scenarios of deceleration markings were adopted: one without markings, one with FS markings, and the third with ER markings. For each scenario, three traffic flow levels were adopted (low, medium, and heavy). The appropriate dimensions of deceleration markings were first established using relevant design guidelines and then used to develop the simulation scenarios using Multigen Creator software. Sixty drivers carried out the simulation experiments with eye tracker equipment. The adequacy of deceleration markings was analyzed with respect to speed, perceived distance, pupil diameter, and geometric parameters. The results showed that both types of deceleration markings made a certain effect on vehicle speed, drivers'visual behavior, and mental characteristics. However, the effect of the FS markings was more pronounced than that of the ER marking. Specifically, the FS markings showed a speed reduction of 12.3 km/h to 15.2 km/h and a perceived distance of 70 m to 90 m, compared with 6.7 km/h to 9.9 km/h and 40 m to 60 m, respectively, for the ER markings. Application comments of the results are provided in the conclusion.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".