Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accident prediction models are invaluable tools that have many applications in road safety analysis. However, there are certain statistical issues related to accident modeling that either deserve further attention or have not been dealt with adequately in the road safety literature. This paper discusses and illustrates how to deal with two statistical issues related to modeling accidents using Poisson and negative binomial regression. The first issue is that of model building or deciding which explanatory variables to include in an accident prediction model. The study differentiates between applications for which it is advisable to avoid model over-fitting and other applications for which it is desirable to fit the model to the data as closely as possible. It then suggests procedures for developing parsimonious models, i.e., models that are not over-fitted, and best-fit models. The second issue discussed in the paper is that of outlier analysis. The study suggests a procedure for the identification and exclusion of extremely influential outliers from the development of Poisson and negative binomial regression models. The procedures suggested for model building and conducting outlier analysis are more straightforward to apply in the case of Poisson regression models because of an added complexity presented by the shape parameter of the negative binomial distribution. The paper, therefore, presents flowcharts detailing the application of the procedures when modeling is carried out using negative binomial regression. The described procedures are then applied in the development of negative binomial accident prediction models for the urban arterials of the cities of Vancouver and Richmond located in the province of British Columbia, Canada. Key words: accident prediction models, overfitting, parsimony, outlier analysis, Poisson regression, negative binomial regression.
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 | 0.052 | 0.134 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".