Safety modeling for two‐way left‐turn lanes and a procedure to identify two‐way left‐turn lane segments with safety concerns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SUMMARY In the past, two‐way left‐turn lane (TWLTL) median treatments have been frequently used in Florida to inexpensively improve traffic and safety performances. In order to identify factors that may have significant impacts on safety operations in TWLTL sections and to identify TWLTL locations that present existing and future safety concerns, a research project was carried out and results are summarized in the paper. In the research, a three‐year crash history database with crashes and section characteristics from a total of 1688 TWLTL sections all over Florida was developed and used. A negative binomial regression model was developed to determine the statistical relationship between the number of crashes per mile per year and several variables such as traffic volume, access density, posted speed, and number of lanes. In regard to the methodology, in order to identify locations with safety concerns, several steps are needed: development of real crash data distribution, determination of statistical distribution models that better represent the actual crash data, determination of percentile values for the average number of crashes, estimation of crash rates for sections with the same characteristics, estimation of critical values for the variables corresponding to the percentile values for average number of crashes, calculation of tables of critical average annual daily traffic values, and generation of a list of TWLTL locations with critical safety concerns. Results presented in the paper have been used in real applications. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".