Advance Yield Markings and Fluorescent Yellow-Green RA 4 Signs at Crosswalks with Uncontrolled Approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Motorists yielding to pedestrians at the crosswalk line on multilane roads with uncontrolled approaches can screen the view of the pedestrians from vehicles approaching in the next lane the pedestrians must cross. Two strategies were designed to increase the safety of pedestrians at crosswalks with uncontrolled approaches: installation of a sign instructing motorists to yield in advance of the crosswalks, supported by yield markings, and replacement of crosswalk signs at the crosswalk with fluorescent yellow-green sheeting. Motorist and pedestrian behaviors were measured at 24 sites (12 urban and 12 rural) where motor vehicle-pedestrian conflicts had occurred. Measured were evasive action, the distance motorists stopped before the crosswalk when yielding to pedestrians, and the percentage of motorists yielding to pedestrians. Results showed that the advance yield sign and advance yield markings reduced the percentage of motor vehicle-pedestrian conflicts involving evasive action and increased the percentage of motorists yielding to pedestrians and yielding further back from the crosswalk line. Results also showed large safety benefits on multilane roads with two-way traffic, multilane roads with one-way traffic, and single-lane roads with oneway traffic. The fluorescent yellow-green crosswalk signs, although more conspicuous, produced no improvement in yielding behavior or motor vehicle-pedestrian conflicts. All results of this experiment, confirmed by statistical analysis, were found to endure during follow-up data collection 6 months after the treatments were introduced. Treatments were applied only to streets posted at 50 km/h (30 mph).
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".