MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2009358895 · doi:10.1139/l08-109

Safety performance of longer combination vehicles relative to other articulated trucks

2009· article· en· W2009358895 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Jonathan D. Regehr, Jeannette Montufar, Garreth Rempel

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic and Road Safety
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsTruckCollisionTractorTransport engineeringTrailerArticulated vehicleVehicle miles of travelEngineeringEnvironmental scienceAutomotive engineeringComputer scienceComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article helps improve the understanding about the safety performance of longer combination vehicles (LCVs) relative to other articulated trucks operating on rural highways, using evidence from the Canadian portion of the CANAMEX trade corridor. The analysis reveals that from a collision rate perspective, LCVs as a group have better safety performance than other articulated trucks. Turnpike doubles have the lowest collision rate of all articulated truck types (16 collisions per 100 million vehicle-kilometres of travel or VKT), followed by Rocky Mountain doubles (32 collisions per 100 million VKT). The collision rate for triple trailer combinations (62 collisions per 100 million VKT) is higher than the collision rates for tractor semitrailers (42 collisions per 100 million VKT) and legal-length tractor double trailers (44 collisions per 100 million VKT). These results are an important input for civil engineering and transport policy decisions concerning longer combination vehicle operations.

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)0.003
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 score0.168
Threshold uncertainty score0.334

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.004
GPT teacher head0.166
Teacher spread0.162 · 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

Citations19
Published2009
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicTraffic and Road SafetyFrench-language works237,207