RWIS Network Planning: Optimal Density and Location, June 2016
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Road authorities rely on accurate and timely road weather and surface condition information provided by weather information systems (RWIS) to optimize winter maintenance operations and improve the safety and mobility of the traveling public. However, RWIS stations are costly to install and operate and therefore must be placed strategically to accurately monitor the entire highway network. Few guidelines are available for optimizing RWIS networks and thus maximizing return on investment. \nThis project developed several approaches for determining the optimal location and density of RWIS stations over a regional highway network. To optimize locations, three approaches were developed: surrogate measure-based, cost-benefit-based, and spatial interference-based. The surrogate measure-based method prioritizes locations that have the highest exposure to severe weather and traffic. The cost-benefit-based method explicitly accounts for the potential benefits of an RWIS network in terms of reduced collisions and maintenance costs. The spatial inference-based method maximizes the use of RWIS information to optimize the configuration of an RWIS network. To optimize network density, a cost-benefit-based method and a spatial interference-based method were developed. \nTo demonstrate the applications of the proposed approaches and evaluate existing RWIS networks, four case studies were conducted using data from one Canadian province (Ontario) and three US states (Minnesota, Iowa, and Utah). It was found that all approaches can be conveniently implemented for real-world applications. The approaches provide alternative ways of incorporating key road weather, traffic, and maintenance factors to optimize the locations and density of RWIS stations in a region; the alternative to use can be decided \nbased on the data and resources available.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.002 |
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".