MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393225365 · doi:10.1177/03611981241233282

Using Deep Neural Networks and Big Data to Predict Microscopic Travel Time in Work Zones

2024· article· en· W4393225365 on OpenAlexaffabout
Yeganeh Morshedzadeh, Suliman Gargoum, Ali S. Gargoum

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic Prediction and Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial neural networkWork (physics)Big dataTravel timeWork zoneTransport engineeringComputer scienceTime travelDeep timeOperations researchEngineeringArtificial intelligenceGeologyData miningMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Traffic management in work zones is a challenging task that requires a balance between creating a safe environment for workers and minimizing traffic delays. Accurately predicting travel times through work zones is essential for dynamic traffic management and reducing congestion. However, complex interrupted traffic patterns in work zones (also known as construction zones) make this challenging compared with regular traffic congestion and free-flow conditions. To address this complexity, the paper develops a data-driven deep feed-forward artificial neural network to forecast under-construction travel times in work zones using an integrated data set of almost half a million observations. The variables considered in the neural network include the work zone characteristics, road design features, weather information, and traffic flow information. The raw data set comprised approximately 15 million travel time observations collected at 674 work zones. After cleaning and preprocessing the data and applying feature engineering techniques, the raw data set was reduced to 81 work zones spread along a 700 km corridor between the western borders of Alberta and Vancouver, British Columbia. The data were split into training and test data using a 90:10 ratio. Training data were used to develop a 27-input neural network with four hidden layers. After validating the test data, the neural network achieved a root mean squared error of 0.150 min and an R-squared score of 0.945, indicating a high accuracy level in estimating the under-construction travel time.

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)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.475
Threshold uncertainty score0.710

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.128
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research BoardSame topicTraffic Prediction and Management TechniquesFrench-language works237,207