MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4294351409 · doi:10.1155/2022/9028212

A Two-Lane Cellular Automaton Model to Evaluate the Bus Lane with Intermittent Priority

2022· article· en· W4294351409 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Dingxin Wu, Xu Han

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Transportation · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic control and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersYoung Scientists FundNatural Science Foundation for Young Scientists of Shanxi ProvinceHuaiyin Institute of TechnologyGovernment of Jiangsu ProvinceNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsPunctualityCellular automatonTraffic flow (computer networking)Software deploymentComputer scienceTransport engineeringSimulationComputer networkEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bus lanes with intermittent priority (BLIPs) are lanes where general traffic is required to give way to approaching buses. BLIPs can improve the reliability of bus services and help maximize the use of road resources. It can be seen as an innovative sharing mobility, such as carsharing, carpooling, and lane sharing. However, implementation of BLIPs has never been feasible until vehicle communications could accommodate the idea. Vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communications have broad application prospects in the deployment of BLIPs. This paper develops a two-lane cellular automaton (CA) model to simulate BLIPs and assesses the benefits of connected vehicles for bus operation. In the model, lane-changings are asymmetric with an improved mandatory BLIP lane-changing rule underlying. The effects of BLIPs are explored through numerical simulations, including BLIPs’ impacts on neighboring lanes, travel time saving, fuel consumption, and the punctuality rate of buses. Analysis of traffic flow characteristics of corridors using BLIPs reveals that there is a strong connection among the bus departure interval, clear distance, and road capacity.

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)0.000
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.244
Threshold uncertainty score0.275

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Citations6
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced TransportationSame topicTraffic control and managementFrench-language works237,207