MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W571343414

Adaptive Signal Control – Is it Worth it?

2013· article· en· W571343414 on OpenAlex
J K Lam

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

VenueITS International · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTransportation Planning and Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSIGNAL (programming language)Control (management)Plan (archaeology)Traffic signalComputer scienceTelecommunicationsTransport engineeringReal-time computingComputer securityEngineeringGeographyArtificial intelligence
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article discusses how there are no gadgets in the world that regulate daily behavior as much as traffic signals, except perhaps mobile phones. It has been estimated that the daily commuter goes through at least 10 signals on his journey to work. However, unlike mobile phones, traffic signals cannot be ignored or switched off by their daily users, at least not without legal consequences. There are about 311,000 traffic signals in the United States, and probably three million signals around the world. If these signals can be influenced to allow for a little bit easier travel every day, there would be significant delay and fuel savings benefits with considerable improvement to the environment. The use of a digital computer to control traffic signals was initiated in Toronto in 1963, but this computer system, which required a five-ton air conditioning unit to keep it cool and operational, was merely a gigantic clock which initially used pre-determined signal plans to regulate traffic flows in different periods of the day. There were signal plans for every occasion – rush hour plans, holiday plans, a baseball plan, and even a snow plan. Traffic responsive control was invented and now the computer could intelligently select the right signal plan from a table based on traffic conditions indicated by detectors. For many years, traffic responsive control has been an integral part of the majority of traffic systems offered in the market. However, this control technique has seldom been used because it does not eliminate the basic requirement for signal improvements, which is signal plan update. Adaptive control became commercially available in the late 70s and they were offered as a total solution, which included the central computer, controllers and the interface units, as well as the fixed time portion of the signal system. These adaptive control systems were expensive and not within easy reach of the average municipality. It was not until recently that lower cost systems were offered that allow the user to implement adaptive control on an incremental basis. However, some experts would argue that these are not truly adaptive control systems.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.935
Threshold uncertainty score0.986

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.273 · 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