Effectiveness and Optimal Location of Real-Time Traffic Conflict Risk Warning System for Rural Unsignalized Intersections: A Driving Simulation Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The real-time traffic conflict risk warning system (RTCRWS) is proposed as a new proactive crash prevention and control strategy for intersections designed to reduce traffic on the main road to rural unsignalized intersections when a vehicle enters the access roads. This study aims at evaluating the effectiveness of the RTCRWS with different locations based on a driving simulation experiment. In this study, four types of the RTCRWS installation location schemes (i.e., no installation, 50 m/100 m/150 m away from the unsignalized intersection) are designed. Twenty-two experienced drivers participated in the driving simulation experiment, and seven evaluating indicators representing driving behavior data are proposed. Two methods to analyze the data are applied: (1) descriptive analysis of driving behavior characteristics different location schemes of the RTCRWS and (2) entropy weight-fuzzy comprehensive evaluation of the RTCRWS. The results show that the RTCRWS has a significant effect on slowing vehicles when approaching the rural unsignalized intersections. If the location of the RTCRWS is 50 m, 100 m, and 150 m from the intersection, the comprehensive score of fuzzy evaluation is 75.82, 74.91, and 77.22, respectively, which implies that the scheme with the RTCRWS 150 m ahead of the intersection is the most effective.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".