MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W563622207

Development of a Screening Tool for Roundabout Feasibility in Winnipeg

2014· article· fr· W563622207 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation 2014: Past, Present, Future - 2014 Conference and Exhibition of the Transportation Association of Canada // Transport 2014 : Du passé vers l'avenir - 2014 Congrès et Exposition de 'Association des transports du Canada · 2014
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldEngineering
TopicUrban Transport Systems Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRoundaboutContext (archaeology)Transport engineeringTraffic calmingSet (abstract data type)EngineeringConstructabilityRisk analysis (engineering)Computer scienceOperations researchSystems engineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As roundabouts become more prominent in Canada, it is increasingly important for decision-makers to have a defined procedure for evaluating when a roundabout is warranted. For the City of Winnipeg this is a present challenge as no such procedure currently exists. To address this, a screening tool was developed to aid engineers in efficiently evaluating when a roundabout is warranted in Winnipeg. The tool, designed to be used in retrofit situations, provides a clear step by step set of considerations when evaluating a potential roundabout location. The tool guides engineers to analyze context sensitive and qualitative factors that can be easily overlooked during initial analyses. Major evaluation objectives include safety, operations, traffic calming, spatial requirements, environmental and aesthetics. The data required to evaluate these objectives includes collision history, cost of collisions, road geometry, and speed limit, as well as mode interaction/split, traffic volume and turning movements. Surrounding land use is an additional consideration both with respect to acquisition cost as well as potential constructability issues. A review of jurisdictions with existing screening procedures was performed to develop an understanding of the requirements of an effective and comprehensive screening tool for roundabouts. These procedures were analyzed to aid in developing additional considerations for the screening tool to create a procedure that makes sense in Winnipeg’s environment. In addition to a review of other jurisdictions’ procedures, a literature review was conducted that focused on reports and recent conference papers that addressed considerations for evaluating roundabouts and roundabout design. This paper consolidates the information obtained from both the consultation with multiple jurisdictions as well as a review of relevant literature to provide a comprehensive source on roundabouts for a mid-sized urban area. The consolidated information combined with the screening tool serve to provide a foundation for the City of Winnipeg to evaluate roundabouts in future intersection retrofit situations and support future policy consideration.

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.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.408
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.195 · 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