MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W623566820

Using GPS and GIS Technologies to Analyze Truck Drivers' Compliance with Traffic Regulations

2007· article· en· W623566820 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Bin Wang, Xiaobo Liu, Christopher Lamm, James Christie

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Research Board 86th Annual MeetingTransportation Research Board · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSafety Warnings and Signage
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTruckTransport engineeringGlobal Positioning SystemPedestrianComputer scienceEngineeringAutomotive engineeringTelecommunications
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study uses GPS and GIS technologies to analyze and compare the compliance of two populations of truck drivers with traffic signs in the City of Saint John, New Brunswick, Canada. Three types of traffic signs used in this analysis are regulatory signs, warning signs, and pedestrian signs. The criteria used to determine drivers' compliance are defined based on the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, produced by the Transportation Association of Canada (TAC 1998). With the use of GPS and GIS, the roadway network, truck speed, tracking data, and traffic sign data are integrated to obtain truck speed characteristics with respect to traffic regulations, as communicated by traffic signs. The truck speed characteristics are then analyzed, and significant factors affecting drivers driving behavior are identified. Two populations of truck drivers were analyzed for the purpose of determining the feasibility of this proposed method for performance evaluation. This study provides an effective approach for trucking firms and public agencies to identify and address safety performance issues their drivers face.

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)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.309
Threshold uncertainty score0.615

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.104
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.321 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransportation Research Board 86th Annual MeetingTransportation Research BoardSame topicSafety Warnings and SignageFrench-language works237,207