MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4408150405 · doi:10.1177/03611981241310128

System Reliability Evaluation of Expressway Horizontal Alignment Design Considering Trucks and Passenger Cars

2025· article· en· W4408150405 on OpenAlexaff
Anjana Ramesh, Jaydip Goyani, Shriniwas Arkatkar, Said M. Easa

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic and Road Safety
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTruckAutomotive engineeringReliability (semiconductor)Transport engineeringComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The design of safe highway alignments is a complex task, with horizontal curves being the most critical components from both safety and operational perspectives. This is because, from the tangent to curve transitions, maintaining a constant operating speed in line with driver expectations rather than the designer’s judgment is essential from a safety standpoint. The relationship between the highway elements and static/dynamic characteristics of the various vehicles on the highway geometry motivates the development of reliable safety strategies for the curve design and safety evaluation. In this study, we selected passenger cars (PCs) and trucks as non-compliant drivers and passenger taxis (PTs) as compliant drivers to evaluate highway safety. We chose 22 horizontal curves from the Ghat region of India’s Mumbai to Pune Expressway. On selected curves, 5940 samples of vehicle spot speeds using a radar gun for PCs/trucks and data from 16 PTs using an e-tracker were collected. We then investigated a stopping sight distance and speed-based reliability framework for assessing horizontal curve design at the curve and alignment system levels. The results show that PCs in non-compliant conditions operate faster than PTs in compliant and trucks in non-compliant conditions. Therefore, the curve has a higher probability of non-compliance, P nc , (lower reliability) for PCs in non-compliant conditions, followed by PTs in compliant and trucks in non-compliant conditions. The higher P nc indicates more chances of crashes on the subject curves. Subsequently, we conducted a sensitivity analysis for the curve radius ranging from 400 to 900 m. The results show that the mid-ordinates must be changed to obtain a lower P nc by offering a longer sight distance.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board→Same topicTraffic and Road Safety→French-language works237,207→