GEOMETRIC DESIGN OF CHAIN-ON/CHAIN-OFF AREAS : A ROADSIDE FACILITY DESIGNED TO ENHANCE SAFETY AND MANAGE RISK ON THE ALBERTA NORTH-SOUTH TRADE CORRIDOR
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper was presented at the session titled 'Risk management in the roads sector - geometric design'. Geometric design guidelines for chain-on/chain-off facilities are not found in design guides such as the Alberta Infrastructure 'Highway Geometric Design Guide', the Transportation Association of Canada (TAC) 'Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads' or the AASHTO 'a policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets'. In addition, signing and marking of chain-on/chain-off facilities are not contained in the TAC 'Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Canada'. While a few highway agencies in the United States and Canada have developed their own specific guidelines, they are often modified and applied on a case by case basis. The purpose of this paper is to present geometric design guidelines for chain-on/chain-off facilities. Also, presented are guidelines for the signing and marking of chain-on/chain-off facilities. The main purpose for developing these guidelines is to enhance safety and manage the risk of highway operation on steep upgrades and downgrades. In developing these guidelines selected highway agencies in Canada and the United States were contacted in order to obtain geometric guidelines and signing of chain-on/chain-off facilities. In addition, regional supervisors for Alberta Infrastructure and maintenance contractors were surveyed for their opinions concerning the need for chains on steep grades. Three classes of chain-on/chain-off facilities are presented which include determination of need and signing of the facility. Geometric design guidelines include cross-section, taper length, and parking areas. Signing guidelines are also presented. While the need for chain-on/chain-off roadside facilities are limited to highways in mountainous terrain or highway crossing steep river valleys in rolling terrain, they are an important geometric design feature and part of an overall risk management strategy for highway agencies. For the covering abstract of this conference see ITRD number E200883. (A)
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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".