Development of a Screening Tool for Roundabout Feasibility in Winnipeg
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.021 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".