MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4248969335 · doi:10.1109/distra.2017.8167673

Macroscopic interval-split free-flow model for vehicular cloud computing

2017· article· en· W4248969335 on OpenAlexaff
Fan Zhang, Robson E. De Grande, Azzedine Boukerche

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic control and management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceCorrectnessContext (archaeology)Cloud computingFlow (mathematics)QueueInterval (graph theory)Traffic flow (computer networking)Real-time computingSimulationDistributed computingAlgorithmMechanicsMathematicsGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Modeling and simulation have shown essential for forecasting load and resource availability in large-scale complex scenarios. The growth of urban environments, as well as the use of ICT in enabling applications and services, has encouraged several works on the modeling of transportation. High mobility of vehicles in such a context consists of a significant challenge in modeling traffic. Several microscopic and macroscopic models have been designed aiming to represent the movement of vehicles accurately in road segments, involving different levels of complexity, precision, and realism. Out of these models, Free-flow models have shown useful due to being light and reasonably accurate for estimating load in short-time predictions. A recent free-flow traffic flow modeled using queues assumed constant vehicle speed along the road segment; this assumption may lead to a lack of realism and accuracy. Therefore, we propose a free-flow model based on this previous work where the road segment is split into several intervals, representing the oscillations of the speed of vehicles. The proposed model has shown correctness comparable to the previous free-flow model, considering that it has included speed varying behavior of vehicles.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Methods
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Simulation or modelinglow
grokno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Methods
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Simulation or modelinglow
opusno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Methods
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Simulation or modelingmedium
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.927
Threshold uncertainty score0.420

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Labeled directly by 3 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTraffic control and managementFrench-language works237,207