MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4223975170 · doi:10.30564/jgr.v5i2.4513

A Hybrid Geostatistical Method for Estimating Citywide Traffic Volumes – A Case Study of Edmonton, Canada

2022· article· en· W4223975170 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mingjian Wu, Tae J. Kwon, Karim El‐Basyouny

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geographical Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil Geostatistics and Mapping
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKrigingRobustness (evolution)Computer scienceTransport engineeringScale (ratio)Traffic volumeEuclidean distanceStatisticsData miningGeographyEngineeringMathematicsCartographyArtificial intelligenceMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Traffic volume information has long played an important role in many transportation related works, such as traffic operations, roadway design, air quality control, and policy making. However, monitoring traffic volumes over a large spatial area is not an easy task due to the significant amount of time and manpower required to collect such large-scale datasets. In this study, a hybrid geostatistical approach, named Network Regression Kriging,has been developed to estimate urban traffic volumes by incorporating auxiliary variables such as road type, speed limit, and network accessibility.Since standard kriging is based on Euclidean distances, this study implements road network distances to improve traffic volumes estimations.A case study using 10-year of traffic volume data collected within the city of Edmonton was conducted to demonstrate the robustness of the model developed herein. Results suggest that the proposed hybrid model significantly outperforms the standard kriging method in terms of accuracy by 4.0% overall, especially for a large-scale network. It was also found that the necessary stationarity assumption for kriging did not hold true for a large network whereby separate estimations for each road type performed significantly better than a general estimation for the overall network by 4.12%.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.724
Threshold uncertainty score0.781

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.329 · 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

Citations8
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geographical ResearchSame topicSoil Geostatistics and MappingFrench-language works237,207