MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2990424123 · doi:10.1061/jtepbs.0000285

Method for Assessing Effect of Input Parameters on Multiobjective Optimization of Signal Control

2019· article· en· W2990424123 on OpenAlexaff
Gustavo Riente de Andrade, Lily Elefteriadou, Mohammed Hadi, Vishal Khanapure

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Transportation Engineering Part A Systems · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVehicle emissions and performance
Canadian institutionsStantec (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntersection (aeronautics)Sensitivity (control systems)SIGNAL (programming language)Computer scienceVariable (mathematics)Key (lock)Relevance (law)Control (management)Signal timingControl variableVariablesTransport engineeringSimulationMathematical optimizationEngineeringMathematicsElectronic engineeringMachine learningArtificial intelligenceComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is an increasing interest in signal-timing optimization methods that can consider mobility, safety, and emissions measures simultaneously. The introduction of new models increases the complexity of the required inputs and the relationships between inputs and outputs. This study developed and implemented such a method in an existing computational engine, presenting a sensitivity analysis conducted to provide insight on the effects and order of relevance of 20 key variables on the model’s outcomes and the associated trade-offs among mobility, safety, and emissions. This insight will help the designer, signal control engineer, and traffic analyst when designing intersection geometry and signal control. The statistical analysis of the results showed that the effect of each variable on the overall performance of the model is highly dependent on the combination of other variables. The traffic demand and the size of the intersection, defined by the number of lanes on the arterial, were found to be the most significant variables, affecting all performance measures. Mobility improvement performance usually coincides with emissions improvements, but sometimes occurs at the expense of safety.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.237 · 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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Transportation Engineering Part A SystemsSame topicVehicle emissions and performanceFrench-language works237,207