MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W6991304729

Full Bayesian Poisson-Hierarchical Models for Crash Data Analysis: Investigating the Impact of Model Choice on Site-Specific Predictions

2016· dissertation· en· W6991304729 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff

Notice bibliographique

RevueOakTrust (Texas A&M University Libraries) · 2016
Typedissertation
Langueen
DomaineEngineering
ThématiqueTraffic and Road Safety
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésBayesian probabilityStatistical modelField (mathematics)Interpretation (philosophy)Bayesian inferenceCrash
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The Poisson-gamma (PG) and Poisson-lognormal (PLN) regression models are among the most popular means for motor-vehicle crash data analysis. Both models belong to the Poisson-hierarchical family of models, which provides a straightforward framework for interpretation of parameters. Over the last two decades, highway safety researchers have increasingly favored a full Bayesian approach to estimation of Poisson-hierarchical models due to its theoretical and computational advantages. While numerous studies have compared the overall performance of alternative Bayesian Poisson-hierarchical models, little research has addressed the impact of model choice on the expected crash frequency prediction at individual sites. This dissertation takes a microscopic approach to comparing the models’ predictions and strives to identify possible trends e.g., that an alternative model’s prediction for sites with certain conditions tends to be higher (or lower) than that from another model. The practical importance of such trends is reflected most clearly when alternative models are utilized to identify hazardous highway sites (e.g., roadway segments, intersection, etc.) by ranking the sites with respect to their expected crash frequency. \n\nIn addition to the PG and PLN models, this research formulates a new member of the Poisson-hierarchical family of models: the Poisson-inverse gamma (PIGam). The PIGam model was of special interest because of the heavy tail of the inverse gamma distribution and the conjectured potential of the PIGam model in dealing with highly over-dispersed data. Four field datasets (from Toronto, Texas, Michigan and Indiana) covering a wide range of over-dispersion characteristics were selected for analysis. \n\nThis study discovered that the disparities between the alternative models predictions are mainly associated with the sites where the observed crash frequency is significantly larger or smaller than expected for a site with similar traffic and physical characteristics. \n\nFor both scenarios, it was demonstrated that the PIGam model tends to predict a higher expectation for crash frequency than would the PLN and PG models, in order. In consequence, sites with unusually high number of observed crashes are likely to be ranked higher (in terms of expected crash frequency) when the PIGam model is used instead of the PLN model, and similarly when the PLN model is used instead of the PG model. \n\nFurthermore, the disparities between alternative model predictions were found to be even more important when the calibrated models were applied to predict crash frequency at sites with no observed crash count. For all four datasets, the PIGam model tended to predict higher expected crash frequencies than did the PLN and PG models, in order. \n\nFinally, a comparison between the models goodness-of-fit using the deviance information criterion (DIC) refuted the conjecture that models with heavy-tailed distributions will certainly perform better as the data become more over-dispersed. The author believes that the relative goodness-of-fit of alternative models to a given dataset is too complicated to be reliably predicted before actually fitting the models. However, the study demonstrated that models with similar measures of goodness-of-fit may predict considerably different crash frequencies at individual sites. This dissertation identified the relationships between alternative models’ predictions at individual sites and described the resulting practical implications of choosing one model over another.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Simulation ou modélisation · Signal consensuel: Simulation ou modélisation
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,724
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,032
Tête enseignante GPT0,244
Écart entre enseignants0,212 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSimulation ou modélisation
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2016
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueOakTrust (Texas A&M University Libraries)Même sujetTraffic and Road SafetyTravaux en français237 207