Development of Canadian National Pedestrian Crossing Control Guide
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2010 the Transportation Association of Canada began the 2-year process of updating the 1998 pedestrian crossing control manual. The resulting document, the Pedestrian Crossing Control Guide, is expected to promote uniformity across the country with respect to the approach used in the provision of pedestrian crossing control. This standardization is done through the development of a decision support tool to assist in the decision-making process when the need for pedestrian crossing control is established and in identification of the type of crossing control to use for the location's characteristics. The development of the new Pedestrian Crossing Control Guide for Canada is discussed, and findings of the research that led to its development are presented. The findings fall into two areas: existing Canadian and international pedestrian crossing control practices and safety performance of different pedestrian crossing control devices. Principal conclusions from this research are (a) international practice is changing toward providing guidance rather than formal, numerical warranting procedures in the decision-making process for the provision of pedestrian crossing control; (b) there are pedestrian crossing control treatments for which there is no available literature regarding safety performance, and the available literature for other treatments lacks rigorous safety evaluations; and (c) further research is needed regarding the safety performance of pedestrian crossing control devices, particularly in the areas of understanding pedestrian collisions and developing accident prediction models.
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 | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.048 | 0.017 |
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".