MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2061344455 · doi:10.3141/1784-01

Analysis of Crash Precursors on Instrumented Freeways

2002· article· en· W2061344455 on OpenAlexaffabout
Chris Lee, Frank Saccomanno, Bruce Hellinga

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic and Road Safety
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCrashTransport engineeringTraffic flow (computer networking)Environmental scienceEngineeringStatisticsComputer scienceMathematicsComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Traffic flow characteristics that lead to crashes on urban freeways are examined. Since these characteristics are observed prior to crash occurrence, they are referred to as “crash precursors.” The objectives are ( a) to explore factors contributing to changes in crash rate for individual vehicles traveling over an urban freeway and ( b) to develop a probabilistic model relating significant crash precursors to changes in crash potential. The data used to examine crash precursors were extracted from 38 loop detector stations on a 10-km stretch of the Gardiner Expressway in Toronto for a 13-month period. An aggregate log-linear model was developed relating crash rates to the selected crash precursors observed upstream of the crash site. The results of this analysis suggest that the variation of speed and traffic density are statistically significant predictors of crash frequency after controlling for road geometry, weather, and time of day. With the model, crash potential can be established based on the precursors obtained from real-time traffic data.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 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

Citations259
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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