MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3097258740 · doi:10.1155/2020/8845832

Optimization Model of Traffic Sensor Layout considering Traffic Big Data

2020· article· en· W3097258740 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Xu Sun, Zixiu Bai, Kun Lin, Pengpeng Jiao, Huapu Lu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Transportation · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic Prediction and Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersChina Postdoctoral Science FoundationMinistry of Education of the People's Republic of China
KeywordsGenetic algorithmComputer scienceConstraint (computer-aided design)Reliability (semiconductor)Set (abstract data type)Mathematical optimizationTraffic flow (computer networking)Lexicographical orderProgramming paradigmPath (computing)EngineeringComputer networkMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In order to improve the accuracy, reliability, and economy of urban traffic information collection, an optimization model of traffic sensor layout is proposed in this paper. Considering the impact of traffic big data, a set of impact factors for traffic sensor layout is established, including system cost, multisource data sharing, data demand, sensor failures, road infrastructure, and sensor type. The impacts of these influential factors are taken into account in the traffic sensor layout optimization problem, which is formulated in the form of multiobjective programming model that includes minimum system cost, maximum truncation flow, minimum path coverage, and an origin-destination (OD) coverage constraint. The model is solved by the tolerant lexicographic method based on a genetic algorithm. A case study shows that the model reflects the influence of multisource data sharing and fault conditions and satisfies the origin-destination coverage constraint to achieve the multiobjective optimization of traffic sensor layout.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.653
Threshold uncertainty score0.461

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.197 · 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

Citations10
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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