MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2030559516 · doi:10.3141/1840-10

Macrolevel Accident Prediction Models for Evaluating Safety of Urban Transportation Systems

2003· article· en· W2030559516 on OpenAlexaffabout
Alireza Hadayeghi, Amer Shalaby, Bhagwant Persaud

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic and Road Safety
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNegative binomial distributionIntersection (aeronautics)Regression analysisTransport engineeringTraffic volumeLinear regressionGeographyStatisticsTime seriesVariablesEconometricsComputer scienceEnvironmental scienceMathematicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A series of macrolevel prediction models that would estimate the number of accidents in planning zones in the city of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, as a function of zonal characteristics were developed. A generalized linear modeling approach was used in which negative binomial regression models were developed separately for total accidents and for severe (fatal and nonfatal injury) accidents as a function of socio-economic and demographic, traffic demand, and network data variables. The variables that had significant effects on accident occurrence were the number of households, the number of major road kilometers, the number of vehicle kilometers traveled, intersection density, posted speed, and volume-capacity ratio. The geographic weighted regression approach was used to test spatial variations in the estimated parameters from zone to zone. Mixed results were obtained from that analysis.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.107

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.106
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations217
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research BoardSame topicTraffic and Road SafetyFrench-language works237,207