An investigation of incident frequency, duration and lanes blockage for determining traffic delay
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Traffic delay caused by incidents is closely related to three variables: incident frequency, incident duration, and the number of lanes blocked by an incident that is directly related to the bottleneck capacity. Relatively, incident duration has been more extensively studied than incident frequency and the number of lanes blocked in an incident. In this study, we provide an investigation of the influencing factors for all of these three variables based on an incident data set that was collected in New York City (NYC). The information about the incidents derived from the identification can be used by incident management agencies in NYC for strategic policy decision making and daily incident management and traffic operation. In identifying the influencing factors for incident frequency, a set of models, including Poisson and Negative Binomial regression models and their zero‐inflated models, were considered. An appropriate model was determined based on a model decision‐making tree. The influencing factors for incident duration were identified based on hazard‐based models where Exponential, Weibull, Log‐logistic, and Log‐normal distributions were considered for incident duration. For the number of lanes blocked in an incident, the identification of the influencing factors was based on an Ordered Probit model which can better capture the order inherent in the number of lanes blocked in an incident. As identified in this study, rain is the only factor that significantly influenced incident frequency. For incident duration and the number of lanes blocked in an incident, various factors had significant impact. As concluded in this study, there is a strong need to identify the influencing factors in terms of different types of incidents and the roadways where the incidents occured.
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".