MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W137855968 · doi:10.3141/2528-06

Automated Region-Based Vehicle Conflict Detection Using Computer Vision Techniques

2015· article· en· W137855968 on OpenAlexaff
Jinling Li, Yuhao Liu, Ahmed Tageldin, Mohamed H. Zaki, Greg Mori, Tarek Sayed

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicVideo Surveillance and Tracking Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCuboidRepresentation (politics)Background subtractionComputer scienceComputer visionArtificial intelligenceSubtractionPoint (geometry)Vehicle tracking systemFeature (linguistics)Set (abstract data type)TrajectoryConflict analysisTraffic conflictConflict resolutionEngineeringMathematicsTraffic congestionPixelSegmentationTransport engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An approach for vehicle conflict analysis based on three-dimensional (3-D) vehicle detection is presented. Techniques for quantitative conflict measurements often use a point trajectory representation for vehicles. More accurate conflict measurement can be facilitated with a region-based vehicle representation instead. This paper describes a computer vision approach for extracting vehicle trajectories from video sequences. The method relied on a fusion of background subtraction and feature-based tracking to provide a three-dimensional (3-D) cuboid representation of the vehicle. Standard conflict measures, including time to collision and postencroachment time, were computed with the use of the 3-D cuboid vehicle representations. The use of these conflict measures was demonstrated on a challenging data set of video footage. Results showed that the region-based representation could provide more precise calculation of traffic conflict indicators compared with approaches based on a point representation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.193
GPT teacher head0.445
Teacher spread0.251 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research BoardSame topicVideo Surveillance and Tracking MethodsFrench-language works237,207