Intersection Sight Distance in Mixed Automated and Conventional Vehicle Environments with Yield Control on Minor Roads
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intersection sight distance (ISD) requirements, currently designed for driver-operated vehicles (DVs), will be affected once automated vehicles (AVs) enter the driving environment. This paper examines the ISD for intersections with a yield control on a minor road in a mixed DV-AV environment. Five potential conflict types with different ISD requirements are modeled as a minor-road vehicle proceeds to cross the intersection, turns right, or turns left. Furthermore, different models are developed for each conflict type depending on the vehicle types on the minor and major roads. These models, along with the intersection geometry, establish the system demand and supply models for ISD reliability analysis. A surrogate safety measure is developed and used to measure ISD non-compliance and is denoted by the probability of unresolved conflicts (PUC). The models are applied to a case study intersection, where PUC values are estimated using Monte Carlo Simulation and compared to an established target value relating to the DV-only traffic of 0.00674. The results show that AV-related traffic has higher overall PUC values than those of DV-only traffic. A corrective measure, reducing the AV speed limit on the minor-road approaches by 3 to 4 km/h, decreases the overall PUC to values below those of the target PUC.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".