MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4321480787 · doi:10.1139/cjce-2022-0098

Modeling the performance of restricted crossing U-turn intersections including the effects of connected and autonomous vehicles: a case study in California

2023· article· en· W4321480787 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jonathan Howard, Amirarsalan Mehrara Molan, Shuqi Xu, Soheil Sajjadi, Anurag Pande

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic control and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntersection (aeronautics)MicrosimulationTransport engineeringLevel crossingGeometric designMarket penetrationPlannerComputer scienceEngineeringOperations researchSimulationArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite numerous studies demonstrating the effectiveness of restricted crossing U-turn (RCUT) intersection design, its implementation remains close to zero in some large states (e.g., California). The study included four locations on high-speed rural expressways (highways with partial access control) in California. The operational evaluation relies on microscopic simulation models of existing two-way stop-controlled (TWSC) intersections and alternate RCUT designs used to estimate network-wide performance measures. Two series of simulation scenarios were tested: (1) scenarios with no connected and autonomous vehicles (CAVs) and (2) scenarios with different SAE International Level 4 CAV market penetration rates (MPRs) to help policymakers and practitioners in future planning strategies. The microsimulation models were also used to generate trajectory data to create a surrogate measure-based approach. Based on the results, the RCUT designs reduced or eliminated the more severe crossing conflicts. Similar vehicle travel times were identified in various CAV MPRs except for one of the locations with challenging geometric features, where travel time increased at higher CAV MPRs.

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 score0.123
Threshold uncertainty score0.890

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.191 · 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

Citations13
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicTraffic control and managementFrench-language works237,207