Bibliographic record
Abstract
Municipalities are increasingly resorting to the development of traffic calming measures. They are facing numerous questions concerning the installation and effectiveness of traffic calming measures but are unable to easily find answers in French-language documentation. To respond to this need, the ministere des Transports du Quebec has begun publishing a series of fact sheets on a variety of traffic calming measures including: speed humps and speed cushions, raised crosswalks and intersections, neckdowns (curb extensions at intersections), the reduction of the width of streets, centre islands and chicanes. A general fact sheet introduces all of the measures and notably outlines the procedure for pre-implementation analysis. Each fact sheet dedicated to an individual measure outlines the implementation context, advantages and disadvantages, geometric characteristics, effectiveness at reducing speed, and maintenance requirements, including winter maintenance. The presentation will introduce the first two published fact sheets: the general fact sheet and the fact sheet on speed humps and speed cushions. The fact sheets as well as examples of measures implemented in municipalities are available on the ministere des Transports website at www.mtq.gouv.qc.ca under Partenaires - Municipalites - Securite routiere. Speed control is a key factor in road safety. It is for this reason that the ministere hopes to support municipal initiatives related to the use of traffic calming measures. By publishing these fact sheets, stakeholders will have easy access to pertinent information as well as concrete examples to help them design the solution best suited to each situation. This paper was originally published in French as Moderation de la circulation - Dos d'ane allonges et coussins (see record control number 201111RT672F). For the covering abstract of this conference see record control number 201111RT334E.
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 | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.004 |
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".