Bibliographic record
Abstract
Highway authorities maintain footways in a safe condition following a regime of regular inspections, repairing hazardous defects found and resurfacing at less frequent intervals. The interval between inspections depends on the footway usage, and the reaction time for repairs depends on the hazard posed by the defect as well as the footway usage, reflecting the relative risk of an accident. Currently, these intervals are determined by judgement and this paper describes how the risk can be quantified. Records of third-party claims were examined for factors that influence numbers of accidents, including pedestrian age, defect size and footway construction. Statistics of accidents requiring hospital treatment and the results of medical research into walking provided further insight. By making a number of assumptions, a relationship between risk and defect height was derived. The cost to society of a footway accident was also determined. Thus, for a given footway network and maintenance regime, the likely number of accidents and their cost can be calculated. This enables highway authorities to compare the costs of different maintenance regimes with the benefits of accidents prevented. Collecting further data in a standard format would enable refinement of the model.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".