Improving Crosswalk Safety: Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon (RRFB) Trial in Calgary
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2011, 323 injury and fatality collisions involving pedestrians occurred within the city of Calgary. Even though pedestrian vehicle interaction will always pose a level of risk, pedestrian safety is improved with the use of active crossing devices which include signs, pavement markings, and push-button activated overhead flashers. The rectangular rapid-flashing beacon (RRFB) is an innovative alternative to the traditional pedestrian-activated overhead flasher assembly. Installed below the sidemounted pedestrian crosswalk signs, RRFBs use dual rectangular LED lights to display intermittent rapid flashes. The RRFBs achieve significant cost savings as they are solar powered and use a wireless connection for communication between the terminals. RRFBs have been evaluated in the United States with positive results; however, no installations or evaluations have taken place in Canada. This paper describes the RRFB Pilot Project undertaken by the City of Calgary to assess motorist yielding behaviour and the performance of the solar power systems. The before-and-after studies using staged crossings revealed that the RRFBs increased yielding compliance at all six crosswalks reaching nearly 100 percent compliance in majority of cases. Motorist yielding increased between 5 and 26 percent, depending on site, with an average of 15 percent. The findings were statistically significant at the 95 percent confidence interval at five of six locations. The performance of the solar power system during winter conditions was found to be satisfactory. (A) For the covering abstract of this conference see ITRD record 201309RT334E.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".