GIS-based travel demand modeling for estimating traffic on low-class roads
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traffic count data are useful for many purposes, but often not available for significant portions of road networks. It would be prohibitive to cover all roads with traditional sensor-based traffic monitoring system, particularly for rural, low-class roads. In cases where traffic volumes are needed but unavailable, travel demand models (TDMs) can be used to estimate such information. A literature review indicates that research work for estimating traffic volumes for low-class roads using TDM is scarce. The majority of previous research used traffic count data-based regressions. The problem of such an approach is that it relies on available traffic counts to develop, calibrate, and validate regression models. Nevertheless, few or no traffic counts are collected on low-class roads, and therefore make it inapplicable. This study implements TDMs for two regions in the province of New Brunswick, Canada to estimate traffic volumes for low-class roads. Geographical Information System-based TDMs using census data and Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Quick Response Method produce forecasted traffic for a significant portion of road network previously without any traffic information and limit the average estimation errors for low-class roads to less than 40%. Available traffic data were increased by 45% in York County and 144% in the Beresford area. The traffic estimation errors are comparable to or better than those reported in the literature, and the forecast traffic volumes provide a solid foundation for identifying high-volume road segments and prioritizing funding. Study results clearly show TDM is a practical, useful, cost-effective way for estimating traffic parameters on low-class roads.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".