MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3195146957 · doi:10.1155/2021/8871288

The Use of Road Microsimulation Software within BIM Environments: A Preliminary Assessment

2021· article· en· W3195146957 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Marilisa Botte, Amedeo Zampi, Cristina Oreto, Luca D’Acierno

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Transportation · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTransportation Planning and Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInteroperabilityFlexibility (engineering)Building information modelingContext (archaeology)Interface (matter)SoftwareSystems engineeringProcess (computing)Computer sciencePlan (archaeology)MicrosimulationTransport engineeringEngineeringRisk analysis (engineering)Construction engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of Building Information Modelling (BIM) is becoming increasingly adopted worldwide to support the creation and management of digital environments in which physical and functional features of a facility are modelled. Due to its characteristic flexibility and interoperability, it rapidly extends beyond the boundaries of applications for which it was originally conceived, thus being implemented in other contexts such as the infrastructure sector. Indeed, during each phase of the construction process for building a linear infrastructure, a suitable design of a traffic control plan to optimising traffic flows proves crucial, both for drivers and builders. In this context, there arises the need to perform a comprehensive analysis, combining infrastructure design and building issues with transportation theory principles. For this purpose, the paper proposes a comparative analysis of two different approaches relying on BIM-based tools, namely integrated (i.e., BIM environments with an in-built module for transport simulation tasks) and an interfaceable solution (i.e., BIM environments offering a customised interface for external mobility simulation software). Specifically, after an overview of the issues involved, the two solutions analysed are customised according to the software packages adopted, and a numerical application is carried out. The goal of the paper is to perform a preliminary analysis on the potential of such frameworks by means of comparative evaluation aimed at identifying pros and cons of the two approaches, as well as the best field of application, according to the effort required from the designer, the degree of flexibility offered, and the target pursued.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.073

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.278 · 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

Citations6
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced Transportation→Same topicTransportation Planning and Optimization→French-language works237,207→