MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3152629223 · doi:10.1139/cjce-2020-0801

Using single and multiple unmanned aerial vehicles for microscopic driver behaviour data collection at freeway interchange ramps

2021· article· en· W3152629223 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Fayez Alamry, Yasser Hassan

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAutonomous Vehicle Technology and Safety
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersTaibah University
KeywordsDifferential GPSComputer scienceData collectionCurvatureSoftwareOblique caseElevation (ballistics)Shadow (psychology)Traffic speedGlobal Positioning SystemSimulationDifferential (mechanical device)Real-time computingTransport engineeringMarine engineeringEngineeringTelecommunicationsAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a detailed methodological framework for collecting microscopic driver and vehicle behaviour data over a long road segment with an application to the entire stretch of a freeway ramp segment using single and multiple unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). The methodology allows users to collect reliable and complete trajectories of traffic movements in areas with challenging physical characteristics (long road segment, horizontal curvature, changing elevation, and presence of shadow), challenging traffic characteristics (high traffic volume, high speeds, and high-speed changes), and restrictive regulations (UAVs prohibited from hovering over the freeway or the right-of-way). Different UAV setups are recommended and can be used depending on the site conditions. Specific commercial software and procedures used to complete the data collection are explained. The methodology was applied at two ramps and verified with speed data acquired from differential GPS receivers using three different error metrics. The results showed good performance of the proposed methodology, including when aerial videos were taken from oblique angles.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.643
Threshold uncertainty score0.931

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.221
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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicAutonomous Vehicle Technology and SafetyFrench-language works237,207