MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3137449253 · doi:10.5383/jttm.03.01.001

On the use of active mobile and stationary devices for detailed traffic data collection: A simulation-based evaluation

2021· article· en· W3137449253 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Henrik Fredriksson, Johan Holmgren, Mattias Dahl

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Traffic and Transportation Management · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic Prediction and Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersTrafikverket
KeywordsData collectionComputer scienceMobile deviceIdentification (biology)Process (computing)Key (lock)Floating car dataReal-time computingData qualitySimulationTransport engineeringEngineeringTraffic congestion

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The process of collecting traffic data is a key component to evaluate the current state of a transportation network and to analyze movements of vehicles. In this paper, we argue that both active stationary and mobile measurement devices should be taken into account for high-quality traffic data with sufficient geographic coverage. Stationary devices are able to collect data over time at certain locations in the network and mobile devices are able to gather data over large geographic regions. Hence, the two types of measurement devices have complementary properties and should be used in conjunction with each other in the data collection process. To evaluate the complementary characteristics of stationary and mobile devices for traffic data collection, we present a traffic simulation model, which we use to study the share of successfully identified vehicles when using both types of devices with varying identification rate. The results from our simulation study, using freight transport in southern Sweden, shows that the share of successfully identified vehicles can be significantly improved by using both stationary and mobile measurement devices.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.299
Threshold uncertainty score0.335

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.264 · 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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Traffic and Transportation ManagementSame topicTraffic Prediction and Management TechniquesFrench-language works237,207