MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W634080116

Development of A Winter Severity Index for Salt Management in Canada

2007· article· en· W634080116 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jeff Suggett, Alireza Hadayeghi, Jean Andrey, Brian Mills, Geoff Leach

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Research Board 86th Annual MeetingTransportation Research Board · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSmart Materials for Construction
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSnowEnvironmental scienceGoodness of fitHomogeneousMeteorologyClimatologyCalibrationIndex (typography)Air temperatureStatisticsGeographyMathematicsComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper discusses the development of two winter severity indicator models that can be used to evaluate the relative harshness of a winter in comparison with a base period. A winter severity index is a measure of the relative impact of winter weather on winter road maintenance operations using historical meteorological or road weather information system data. Winter road maintenance data were collected from across. Salt usage in tons (salt (t)/lane-km/day) was chosen as the dependent variable, standardized to account for differences in road network and the number of days in the observation period. The first model developed based on meteorological data alone achieved a goodness of fit of 0.54. Explanatory variables were based on snowfall occurrence, air temperature, freezing rain occurrence, and an east-west dummy variable. A second model was developed based on meteorological data together with road weather information system data. This achieved a goodness of fit of 0.60, but was based on a significantly smaller sample size. In this model, pavement temperature was substituted for air temperature. An Index was developed based on the predicted values using a scale between 1 and 100. Calibration factors were developed for twenty different homogeneous groupings across Canada using the Bayesian method. Based on the calibration, thirteen of the twenty groups achieved a better goodness of fit compared to the national model results. The model results show a better performance in heavily populated areas and in eastern Canada. Limitations of the models and recommendations for further research are presented in the paper.

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)0.003
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 score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.147

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 topicSmart Materials for ConstructionFrench-language works237,207