MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2047522377 · doi:10.3141/2019-09

Macrolevel Collision Prediction Models to Enhance Traditional Reactive Road Safety Improvement Programs

2007· article· en· W2047522377 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Gordon Lovegrove, Tarek Sayed

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic and Road Safety
Canadian institutionsOkanagan University CollegeUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCollisionTransport engineeringIdentification (biology)Computer scienceHazardous wasteRisk analysis (engineering)EngineeringComputer securityBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The reactive use is described of 35 recently developed macrolevel collision prediction models (CPMs) to conduct a black spot study with data from 577 urban and rural neighborhoods across Greater Vancouver in British Columbia, Canada. The research objective was to investigate macrolevel CPM use in a traditional reactive safety application (macroreactive use): identification, diagnosis, and remedy of hazardous locations. The results suggested that macroreactive use has the potential to complement traditional road safety improvement programs. Several collision-prone zones were identified and ranked for diagnosis. Two zones were analyzed in detail and revealed several potential enhancements to conventional methods. If adopted for normal use by practitioners, macrolevel CPMs could facilitate improved decisions by community planners and engineers and ultimately could facilitate improved neighborhood road safety for residents and other road users.

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 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)0.006
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 score0.934
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations58
Published2007
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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