Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to demonstrate the analysis procedures for feasibility study of roundabouts, five case studies on Alberta and Saskatchewan rural arterial highways, including signalized and stop-controlled intersections as well as an interchange ramp terminal were analyzed. They all have either long delays or operational and safety concerns that improvements are required. In the case studies, future intersection turning volumes were predicted to evaluate traffic operations and capacity of each alternative. Cross comparison of traffic operations was made between stop- controlled intersections, signal controls, single-lane and two-lane roundabouts. Detailed traffic analysis was carried out for different alternatives using several software packages, including Synchro, SIDRA and VISSIM. Economic analysis and rating matrix methods were used in alternative evaluation. These case studies demonstrated intersections where roundabout is a good solution and locations where roundabout is not the best choice. Based on the study, it is concluded that in order for a roundabout to be feasible for an intersection, it should have adequate capacity, expected safety performance and superior economic value than other competing alternatives. The capacity of single-lane roundabouts is higher than all-way-stop controlled intersections but lower than signalized intersections with properly designed through and turning lanes. The capacity of two-lane roundabouts is usually lower than channelized intersections with two through lanes in each direction and exclusive left-turn lanes. Innovative use of roundabouts at some interchange terminals can not only provide safety benefits, but also offer operational advantages that were otherwise unavailable with conventional stop-controlled intersections. (A) For the covering abstract of this conference see ITRD record number 201211RT334E.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
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".