MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3031656496 · doi:10.1061/jtepbs.0000382

Utilizing Low-Ping Frequency Vehicle Trajectory Data to Characterize Delay at Traffic Signals

2020· article· en· W3031656496 on OpenAlexaff
Jonathan M. Waddell, Stephen M. Remias, Jenna N. Kirsch, Ted Trepanier

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Transportation Engineering Part A Systems · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic Prediction and Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsPublic Works and Government Services Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPing (video games)Computer scienceTrajectoryReal-time computingWaypointGlobal Positioning SystemTelecommunicationsComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Probe vehicle data is changing the landscape of transportation engineering. The availability of vehicle trajectory data, or GPS waypoint data, has expanded the utility of probe data. However, the low penetration rate of vehicles prevents signal-performance assessment during short-term or low-volume periods, such as special events, seasonal traffic patterns, and overnight timing plans. Current research has used high-ping frequency data or the temporal distributions of waypoints of less than 2 s. This paper evaluates different approaches for using low-ping frequency data to measure delays at signalized intersections. The results of statistical testing show that 30- and 60-s ping data provide delay values that are not significantly different from 1-s ping data. These sampling frequencies increase the number of observable trajectories by 700%. This data allows for scalable approaches to immediately measure delays at signalized intersections nationwide in the US, thereby reducing costly infrastructure needed for signalized performance measures.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.185 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations19
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Transportation Engineering Part A SystemsSame topicTraffic Prediction and Management TechniquesFrench-language works237,207