MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2042980166 · doi:10.3141/1908-15

Collision Frequency Analysis Using Tree-Based Stratification

2005· article· en· W2042980166 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAnomaly Detection Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCollisionStratification (seeds)Tree (set theory)Environmental scienceComputer scienceEngineeringMathematicsBiologyComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although several factors are known to contribute to collisions at highway–railway grade crossings, the mixed effects of the control factors such as a highway class and other countermeasures on collision occurrence are less well explored. This study evaluates the relationship between countermeasures and collision occurrence by using a sequential analytic strategy that combines the tree-based data stratification method with the generalized linear regression technique. After the control factor effects were controlled with the use of the tree-based data partitioning method, stratified collision prediction models were developed, and the adjusted effect of the selected countermeasures was identified. The conventional statistical models were also provided for comparison with stratified models. The study used Canadian inventory and collision data to demonstrate the expected collision reductions resulting from changes in selected countermeasures, such as warning devices and posted speed limit.

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)0.004
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.489
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.099
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.300 · 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