MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W620218817

Time to Phase Out Toll Booths

2005· article· en· W620218817 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Poole, W Robert

Bibliographic record

VenueRCC's public works financing · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTransportation and Mobility Innovations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTollTransponder (aeronautics)Toll roadElectronic toll collectionStandardizationTransport engineeringInteroperabilityBusinessTelecommunicationsEngineeringComputer scienceWorld Wide Web
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article discusses fully automated toll roads, also called cashless toll roads. The author briefly describes a project in Santiago, Chile, that consists of four major expressways which will eventually be the first fully automated urban tollway system. The fully automated toll collection is largely based on transponders (about 90% of users), but nontransponder users can purchase a day-pass. A violator is offered the opportunity to buy a late day pass and if that opportunity is not exercised, is fined $50. The author goes on the describe a similar model used for the past 5 years in Melbourne, Australia; a different style of open-road tolling in Toronto, Canada; and HOT (high occupancy toll) lanes in California, Texas, and Minneapolis. The author then addresses some of the concerns about fully phasing out all toll booths. These include the role of the toll collectors' unions, transponder penetration, transponder standardization, interoperability, and how to handle rural or occasional users. The author concludes with a brief discussion of the benefits of implementing cashless tolling, which include reduced costs, time savings to customers, and reduced emissions output from waiting in line.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.152
Threshold uncertainty score0.507

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1520.021

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.227 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRCC's public works financingSame topicTransportation and Mobility InnovationsFrench-language works237,207