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 OpenAlexafffundvenue
Richard Tay, Shakil Mohammad Rifaat

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.

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)0.008
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.008
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

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

Citations123
Published2007
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced TransportationSame topicTraffic and Road SafetyFrench-language works237,207