MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3008779156 · doi:10.1155/2020/9541234

Evaluating the Accuracy of Bluetooth-Based Travel Time on Arterial Roads: A Case Study of Perth, Western Australia

2020· article· en· W3008779156 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yuchen Liu, Jianhong Xia, Aloke Phatak

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Transportation · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic Prediction and Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAustralian Research CouncilAustralian Government
KeywordsBluetoothTravel timeComputer scienceMatching (statistics)Noise (video)Transport engineeringStatisticsReal-time computingSimulationEngineeringTelecommunicationsMathematicsWirelessArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bluetooth (BT) time-stamped media access control (MAC) address data have been used for traffic studies worldwide. Although Bluetooth (BT) technology has been widely recognised as an effective, low-cost traffic data source in freeway traffic contexts, it is still unclear whether BT technology can provide accurate travel time (TT) information in complex urban traffic environments. Therefore, this empirical study aims to systematically evaluate the accuracy of BT travel time estimates in urban arterial contexts. There are two major hurdles to deriving accurate TT information for arterial roads: the multiple detection problem and noise in BT estimates. To date, they have not been fully investigated, nor have well-accepted solutions been found. Using approximately two million records of BT time-stamped MAC address data from twenty weekdays, this study uses five different BT TT-matching methods to investigate and quantify the impact of multiple detection problems and the noise in BT TT estimates on the accuracy of average BT travel times. Our work shows that accurate Bluetooth-based travel time information on signalised arterial roads can be derived if an appropriate matching method can be selected to smooth out the remaining noise in the filtered travel time estimates. Overall, average-to-average and last-to-last matching methods are best for long (>1 km) and short (≤1 km) signalised arterial road segments, respectively. Furthermore, our results show that the differences between BT and ground truth average TTs or speeds are systematic, and adding a calibration is a pragmatic method to correct inaccurate BT average TTs or speeds. The results of this research can help researchers and road operators to better understand BT technology for TT analysis and consequently to optimise the deployment location and configuration of BT MAC address scanners.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.629
Threshold uncertainty score0.324

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 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

Citations9
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced TransportationSame topicTraffic Prediction and Management TechniquesFrench-language works237,207