MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2056050883 · doi:10.3141/1773-08

Advance Yield Markings: Reducing Motor Vehicle—Pedestrian Conflicts at Multilane Crosswalks with Uncontrolled Approach

2001· article· en· W2056050883 on OpenAlexaff
Ron Van Houten, J. E. Louis Malenfant, Dave McCusker

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic and Road Safety
Canadian institutionsMount Saint Vincent University
FundersU.S. Department of Transportation
KeywordsSchema crosswalkPedestrianTransport engineeringPedestrian crossingSign (mathematics)HeadlampEngineeringComputer scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Motorists yielding to a pedestrian at the crosswalk line can screen the view of the pedestrian crossing in front of them. This places the pedestrian at risk from vehicles approaching in adjacent travel lanes. An experiment was conducted in which advance yield markings and a symbol sign prompting motorists to yield to pedestrians at the markings were placed at several intersections. Their effects on pedestrian safety at multilane crosswalks with pedestrian-activated yellow flashing beacons were evaluated. Motorist and pedestrian behaviors measured throughout the experiment included the following: occurrence of motor vehicle—pedestrian conflicts that involved evasive action, distance before the crosswalk that motorists stopped when yielding to pedestrians, and percentage of motorists yielding to pedestrians. The introduction of the markings and the sign 10 m before the crosswalk increased the distance in front of the crosswalk that motorists yielded to pedestrians and it markedly reduced the percentage of motor vehicle-pedestrian conflicts. Placing markings 15 m and 25 m in advance of the crosswalk produced similar benefits, demonstrating that treatment effects can be produced over a wide range of values.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.563
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.259 · 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.

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

Citations41
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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