Traffic Data: Bluetooth Sensors vs. Crowdsourcing—A Comparative Study to Calculate Travel Time Reliability in Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The City of Calgary did a comparative study between two techniques of traffic data collection: Bluetooth sensors and crowdsourcing, for measuring travel time reliability on two goods movement corridors in Calgary, Alberta. To estimate travel time and speed, we used the output of BluFAX sensors, which were operated by monitoring Bluetooth signals at several points along a roadway. On the other hand, TomTom historical traffic data were extracted from the TomTom Traffic Stats portal. To calculate travel time reliability, we applied the buffer index, and the planning time index recommended by FHWA (Federal Highway Administration). The Bluetooth traffic data were presumed as the benchmark in this study. Unlike the TomTom traffic data, the data provided by the Bluetooth technology met the minimum recommended sample size requirement, although data processing was time consuming and impractical for long study periods. Our study results showed that crowdsourcing technique can be a viable alternative and provide travel time reliability estimates with a reasonable accuracy, when there are adequate numbers of records registered. However, the TomTom sample sizes in Calgary were not large enough to provide a statistically reliable method of providing travel time indices. Further researches may verify the accuracy of crowdsourcing technologies for travel time studies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".