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
This report will be of interest to transportation agencies, as well as to others in the transportation community who are interested in the installation of centerline rumble strips (CLRS). The synthesis was undertaken to address the need for state-of-the-practice information relative to CLRS use and/or design. It summarizes current design practices, installation, configuration, dimensions, and visibility. The synthesis addresses the need for guidance on warrants, benefits, successful practices, and concerns (e.g., external noise and the reduced visibility of centerline striping material). Also addressed are pavement deterioration, ice buildup in the grooves, adverse impact on emergency vehicles, and the effect of CLRS on bicyclists. Particular attention was paid to available before-and-after CLRS installation crash data to document the safety aspects of CLRS and the availability of policies, guidelines, warrants, and costs regarding their use and design. This synthesis report includes a review of published literature and unpublished reports on CLRS. In addition, a survey was distributed to all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and 7 Canadian provinces. Discussions with contacts yielded further information. Case studies were undertaken for two representative states that provide overview information about innovative approaches and their results, as well as lessons learned.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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