MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1991859579 · doi:10.1080/19439960903328595

Effects of Neighborhood Street Patterns on Traffic Collision Frequency

2009· article· en· W1991859579 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Shakil Mohammad Rifaat, Richard Tay, Alex Perez, Alex De Barros

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Transportation Safety & Security · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic and Road Safety
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersAlberta Motor Association Foundation for Traffic SafetyNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMcGill University
KeywordsTransport engineeringCollisionGeographyComputer scienceEngineeringComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the last 50 years, the loops and lollipop design has become the basic building block of many urban neighborhoods. In the field of traffic engineering, this combination of cul-de-sacs and loop streets is designed to discourage through traffic and improve road safety and thus has the support of many traffic engineers. Perhaps due to its intuitive appeal, few studies were conducted to examine the impact of this design on road crashes. Using the City of Calgary in Canada as a case study, this study examines the effects of different neighborhood street patterns on the number of reported crashes. Our results suggest that currently popular road patterns such as warped parallel, loops and lollipops, lollipops on a stick, and mixed shapes are associated with fewer crashes than traditional gridiron pattern.

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)0.007
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.070

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.200
Teacher spread0.197 · 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

Citations25
Published2009
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Transportation Safety & SecuritySame topicTraffic and Road SafetyFrench-language works237,207