Collision Prediction Models for Three-Dimensional Two-Lane Highways
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Collision prediction models for three-dimensional (3-D) alignments of two-lane rural highways are lacking in the literature. This paper presents such models with vehicle collision data on 5,760 km (3,600 mi) of two-lane rural highways in Washington State collected from 2002 through 2005. Five statistical models were developed for different combinations of 3-D alignments to establish the relationship between collision frequency and the relevant variables. The alignment combinations are (a) horizontal curves combined with crest vertical curves, (b) horizontal curves combined with sag vertical curves, (c) horizontal curves combined with multiple vertical curves, (d) horizontal curves combined with grades of less than 5%, and (e) horizontal curves combined with grades of more than 5%. For each combination, four different statistical techniques were explored: Poisson, negative binomial, zero-inflated Poisson, and zero-inflated negative binomial. For validation, two models were selected and estimated by using the first 3 years of collision data and validated with the last-year data. The results show that the most significant predictors for collisions on horizontal curves on 3-D alignments are the degree of curvature, roadway width (lanes plus shoulders), access density, product of grade value and grade length, road section length, and average annual daily traffic. The results of this study should be useful in evaluating road safety on 3-D alignments and optimizing their design based on the substantive safety approaches.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".