MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407426468 · doi:10.1155/atr/6825429

An Empirical Investigation of Speed Patterns on S‐Curves Using Naturalistic Driving Data and Mixed Logit Model

2025· article· en· W4407426468 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Cailin Lei, Yu Shen, Yuxiong Ji, Xiaoyu Cai, Yuchuan Du

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Transportation · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic Prediction and Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Key Research and Development Program of China
KeywordsLogitMixed logitLogistic regressionStatisticsEconometricsMixed modelTransport engineeringEnvironmental scienceEngineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

S‐curves are common and complex curves in road networks, consisting of two curves in opposite directions connected by a short segment. Drivers’ behavior on S‐curves reflects their ability to navigate complex environments, which is not yet fully understood. This study examines speed patterns on five S‐curves using a naturalistic driving dataset of 2676 vehicle trajectories. A hierarchical clustering method is proposed to identify typical speed patterns on S‐curves, and a mixed logit model is developed to analyze the influence of curve radius, slope, and lighting conditions on drivers’ speed pattern choices. The empirical findings reveal that (1) each S‐curve has dominant speed patterns, and these patterns vary across different S‐curves; (2) speed patterns generally exhibit three types of shapes: S‐shaped, U‐shaped, and anti‐S‐shaped; and (3) the curve radius, the difference in radii between the two adjacent curves, the slope, and lighting conditions significantly influence drivers’ speed pattern choices. These results provide valuable insights for S‐curve alignment design, speed guidance strategies, and speed planning algorithms for autonomous 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

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 score0.301
Threshold uncertainty score0.288

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.279 · 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced TransportationSame topicTraffic Prediction and Management TechniquesFrench-language works237,207