MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2030339471 · doi:10.1002/atr.5670410303

Factors contributing to the severity of intersection crashes

2007· article· en· W2030339471 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Transportation · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic and Road Safety
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersAlberta Motor Association Foundation for Traffic Safety
KeywordsIntersection (aeronautics)CrashOrdered probitProbitPoison controlTransport engineeringInjury preventionProbit modelHuman factors and ergonomicsRoad trafficOccupational safety and healthEnvironmental healthGeographyEngineeringComputer scienceStatisticsMedicineMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Road crashes are a leading cause of death and serious injuries both developed and developing countries. Intersections are recognized as being among the most hazardous locations on the roads. Although crashes at intersections form about 35 % of the reported accidents account for about 32% of traffic‐related serious injuries and fatalities in Singapore, there is no known study that examines the factors contributing to the severity of these crashes. In this study, the ordinal probit model was applied to crash data from 1992 to 2002 to investigate the role a variety of factors play in determining the severity of intersection crashes. Our study shows that vehicle type, road type, collision type, driver's characteristics and time of day are important determinants of the severity of crashes at intersections in Singapore.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.944
Threshold uncertainty score0.166

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.223 · 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