MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W632314743

NETWORK OPERATIONS: ISSUES AND TASKS FOR THE TECHNICAL COMMITTEE ON NETWORK OPERATIONS

2000· article· en· W632314743 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
S Sultana, L Lefebvre

Bibliographic record

VenueRoutes/Roads · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic Prediction and Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMandateRelation (database)PaymentNetwork managementTransport engineeringComputer scienceFleet managementProcess managementEngineering managementRisk analysis (engineering)Computer securityEngineeringBusinessComputer network
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PIARC's Technical Committee on Network Operations (C16) has a broad mandate to analyse, assess, and promote tools such as Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) to develop successful road network operations strategies. This paper reviews the concept of network operations and underlying organisation structures, discusses the use of ITS to deliver better services to users, and presents related topics with which C16 will be concerned in 2000-2003. 'Network operations' is defined as the maintenance of optimal conditions on a road network in relation to supply and demand. Network operators' objectives include road safety, traffic management, incident management, maintenance and construction management, driver information, improved linkages between modes, and reliable and convenient public transport. As an illustrative example, the network operations and organisation structures in the Canadian province of Quebec are described. ITS can be applied to user information, traffic management, public transport, electronic payment, commercial vehicle operations, emergency management, advanced vehicle controls and safety systems, and data warehousing services. To improve performance, processes enabling the assessment of operations must be implemented. Some challenges for network operations are outlined.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.970
Threshold uncertainty score0.491

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRoutes/RoadsSame topicTraffic Prediction and Management TechniquesFrench-language works237,207