Comparison of Traffic Accommodation Guidelines in Alberta from a Practical Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With a natural resource rich economy, Calgary's rapid growth has necessitated the construction of southeast quadrant of Stoney Trail, which will serve as the city's ring road once all four quadrants are completed. The portion of Stoney Trail being constructed will include 14 km of new freeway, 13 km of upgrades and expansions and the construction or upgrade of 9 interchanges. Traffic Accommodation Strategies (TAS) temporarily divert traffic to accommodate construction activities, while ensuring worker and traveller safety. The need is most prevalent where the existing roadways cannot be closed for construction. While TAS's are essential for safety, the attention paid towards their development and execution is sometimes less than what is warranted. In an effort to streamline the process, various jurisdictions and organizations have published standards and recommendations for TAS design and implementation. While these publications are sometimes similar they can differ greatly from each other in certain critical areas. On the Southeast Stoney Trail (SEST) project, the differences have become an issue at times, such as where the standard in-force impractical to implement, or when the TAS covers two different jurisdictions that employ significantly different standards. This paper examines various standards and recommendations applicable to Alberta in order to analyse the similarities and discrepancies between them. A commentary on the SEST project is included to highlight any deficiencies in the published material. Finally, attempts are made to rationalize and streamline an approach in situations where conflicting standards are in-place. Potential legal issues with utilizing different standards are discussed. (A) For the covering abstract of this conference see ITRD record number 201310RT334E.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".