MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1964250065 · doi:10.3141/2103-11

Comparison of Simulated Freeway Safety Performance with Observed Crashes

2009· article· en· W1964250065 on OpenAlexaff
Flávio José Craveiro Cunto, David Duong, Frank Saccomanno

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic and Road Safety
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCrashCrash testIndex (typography)Matching (statistics)StatisticsComputer scienceTransport engineeringEngineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper provides a link between simulated measures of safety performance and observed crash occurrence. Safety performance is expressed by using a crash potential index (CPI), established as a function of individual vehicle deceleration rates required to avoid a crash and of braking capabilities. Safety performance is compared with a sample of crashes observed on an instrumented segment of freeway. Three test results are reported: ( a) comparing safety performance in 1-min increments for a period 5 min before the precise crash time, ( b) comparing safety performance in 1-min increments over 5 min for matching crash and noncrash cases, and ( c) comparing average safety performance with observed crash rates for a 1-h period at the same site. The results of this study confirm that crashes tend to occur when measures of safety performance at a given site are higher than normal and that this measure increases with the approaching time to crash. The results provide basic evidence that the CPI measure of safety performance tends to reflect or explain increased crash risk subject to real-time changes in traffic conditions.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.095
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Citations18
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research BoardSame topicTraffic and Road SafetyFrench-language works237,207