Influences of Exit Advance Guide Signs on the Trajectory and Speed of Passenger Cars in Highway Tunnels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The driving behavior in highway tunnels is more complicated than that in regular roadbed sections because the former is usually affected by black and white hole effects, tunnel clearance, and bad illumination. Unfortunately, the current Chinese criteria and the Uniform Traffic Control Equipment Manual (MUTCD) 2009 guidelines provide no clear method for setting exit advance guide signs in highway tunnels. Hence, a driving simulator-based experiment was conducted in the current study to analyze the effects of exit advance guide signs on the trajectory, speed, and acceleration of passenger cars in a highway tunnel under three different service levels. It was found that when the service level is first service level, second service level, and third service level, the setting of the exit advance guide signs made the initial transverse location of the vehicle from the tunnel exit advance by 13.39%, 21.20%, and 5.73%, the lane change distance is shortened by 6.34%, 20.18%, and 15.34%, the average speed is decreased by 1.44%, 2.40%, and 0.08%, and the acceleration is decreased to −0.10 m·s−2, −0.11 m·s−2, and −0.06 m·s−2. Thus, the exit guide signs in the tunnel played a certain optimization role in improving the traffic flow state of the section and reducing the traffic accident rate.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".