MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1991293609 · doi:10.3141/1922-05

Multijurisdictional Safety Evaluation of Red Light Cameras

2005· article· en· W1991293609 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOcular and Laser Science Research
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersFederal Highway Administration
KeywordsTransport engineeringRed lightPoison controlForensic engineeringEngineeringComputer scienceMedical emergencyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of red light camera (RLC) systems has risen dramatically in the United States in recent years. The size of the problem, the promise shown by RLC systems in other countries, and the paucity of definitive U.S. studies have motivated a multijurisdictional U.S. study. The fundamental objective of this study, which was sponsored by FHWA, was to determine the effectiveness of the RLC systems in reducing crashes at monitored intersections as well as jurisdictionwide. Phase I involved the development of a detailed experimental design that included collection of background information, establishment of study goals, selection of potential study jurisdictions, and specification of statistical methodology. In Phase 2, an empirical Bayes before-and-after study used data from seven jurisdictions across the United States, with a total of 132 treatment sites. Effects detected were consistent in direction with those found in many previous studies—a decrease in right-angle crashes and an increase in rear-end crashes—although both effects are somewhat lower than those reported in many sources. The extent to which the increase in rear-end crashes negates the benefits for right-angle crashes is unclear and points to the need for an examination of the economic cost of crashes, which is the subject of a companion paper, to aggregate the effects on rear-end, right-angle, and other crash costs. That second paper seeks to isolate all factors that would favor the installation of RLC systems by using the aggregate economic benefit as the outcome variable. There were weak indications of a spillover effect, which point to a need for a more definitive, perhaps prospective, study of this issue.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.307
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.110
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.326 · 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