BikeMaps.org: A Global Tool for Collision and Near Miss Mapping
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are many public health benefits to cycling, such as chronic disease reduction and improved air quality. Real and perceived concerns about safety are primary barriers to new ridership. Due to limited forums for official reporting of cycling incidents, lack of comprehensive data is limiting our ability to study cycling safety and conduct surveillance. Our goal is to introduce BikeMaps.org, a new website developed by the authors for crowd-source mapping of cycling collisions and near misses. BikeMaps.org is a global mapping system that allows citizens to map locations of cycling incidents and report on the nature of the event. Attributes collected are designed for spatial modeling research on predictors of safety and risk, and to aid surveillance and planning. Released in October 2014, within 2 months the website had more than 14,000 visitors and mapping in 14 countries. Collisions represent 38% of reports (134/356) and near misses 62% (222/356). In our pilot city, Victoria, Canada, citizens mapped data equivalent to about 1 year of official cycling collision reports within 2 months via BikeMaps.org. Using report completeness as an indicator, early reports indicate that data are of high quality with 50% being fully attributed and another 10% having only one missing attribute. We are advancing this technology, with the development of a mobile App, improved data visualization, real-time altering of hazard reports, and automated open-source tools for data sharing. Researchers and citizens interested in utilizing the BikeMaps.org technology can get involved by encouraging citizen mapping in their region.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.069 | 0.034 |
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".