MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Impact of Dynamic and Safety-Conscious Route Guidance on Accident Risk

2003· article· en· W1971228482 on OpenAlexaff
Baher Abdulhai, Horace Look

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Transportation Engineering · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic and Road Safety
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMarket penetrationTransport engineeringAccident (philosophy)Computer scienceRouting (electronic design automation)Operations researchRisk analysis (engineering)EngineeringBusinessComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Under intelligent transportation systems, dynamic route guidance systems (DRG) provide routing information to motorists based on current traffic conditions on a network. Not enough attention, however, has been given to the impact of such dynamic routing decisions on network safety in terms of the predicted number of accidents. The objectives of this paper are to investigate the variation of network-wide accidents caused by traffic redistribution subject to various levels of DRG market penetration, and to examine the potential of a new safety-enhanced route guidance system. A microsimulation model was developed and integrated with a set of accident prediction models for links and intersections. Accident estimates were plotted against time to produce an accident profile that could describe the change of accident occurrence over a time period. Accident profiles, together with average travel time, were used to explain the relationships between DRG market penetration and the number of network-wide accidents. The integrated simulation model was also applied to enhance DRG by suggesting routes with the fewest estimated accidents and hence making route guidance safety conscious.

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)0.012
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations16
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Transportation EngineeringSame topicTraffic and Road SafetyFrench-language works237,207