MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1541364305

Logistic Model of Hit and Run Crashes in Calgary

2010· article· en· W1541364305 on OpenAlexaffabout
Richard Tay, Lina Kattan, Huafei Sun

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic and Road Safety
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCrashLogistic regressionStatisticsTransport engineeringDemographyComputer scienceEngineeringMathematicsSociology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hit-and-run cashes refer to traffic collisions in which at least one driver flees from crash scene without reporting the crash. In the City of Calgary, for example, they accounted for 18 percent of total traffic collisions in 2005. The objective of this study is to identify the environment and road characteristics that contribute to the occurrence of hit-and-run crashes in the City of Calgary. A logistic regression model was developed to delineate the likelihood of hit-and-run crashes as opposed to non hit-and-run crashes. Our study showed that compared to weekday and daytime collisions, weekend and night time collisions have significantly higher likelihood of hit-and-run. In terms of weather condition, clear weather exhibited the greatest chance of hit-and-run when compared to any other weather conditions. Moreover, hit-and-run crashes are quite likely to occur on undivided one-way roads and the roads with artificial light. As for driver related factors, female drivers aged at 55 or above showed the greatest likelihood as compared to other age groups. Based on the findings from this study, a set of countermeasures will be proposed in this paper.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.776
Threshold uncertainty score0.445

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.187 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations23
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTraffic and Road SafetyFrench-language works237,207