Establishing Right-of-Way Standards for Roundabouts in the City of Calgary, Canada
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although roundabouts have been used in Calgary, Canada in a number of applications, until recently there was no formal policy or direction to pursue roundabouts for traffic control. In 2006, the city began to develop a roundabout guide. As part of this effort, standard roundabout concepts were developed of existing roadway cross sections and the identification of right-of-way requirements for various intersection types. This article discusses the process and provides background information on the application of roundabouts in a medium-sized urban region. Two critical decisions were reached early in the process: (1) defining what level of traffic necessitated a traffic calming circle versus a roundabout; and (2) allowing design engineers flexibility when creating new intersection designs. The process considered the needs of various stakeholders. The standard requires additional right of way for undivided and divided roadways. Current right of way is sufficient to accommodate single or multilane roundabouts. The city of Calgary currently is working to address other outstanding issues related to roundabout implementation in order to ensure a consistent approach in the future.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it