Modeling Traffic Crash-Flow Relationships for Intersections: Dispersion Parameter, Functional Form, and Bayes Versus Empirical Bayes Methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Statistical relationships between traffic crashes and traffic flows at roadway intersections have been extensively modeled and evaluated in recent years. The underlying assumptions adopted in the popular models for intersections are challenged. First, the assumption that the dispersion parameter is a fixed parameter across sites and time periods is challenged. Second, the mathematical limitations of some functional forms used in these models, particularly their properties at the boundaries, are examined. It is also demonstrated that, for a given data set, a large number of plausible functional forms with almost the same overall statistical goodness of fit (GOF) is possible, and an alternative class of logical formulations that may enable a richer interpretation of the data is introduced. A comparison of site estimates from the empirical Bayes and full Bayes methods is also presented. All discussions and comparisons are illustrated with a set of data collected for an urban four-legged signalized intersection in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, from 1990 to 1995. In discussing functional forms, the need for some goodness-of-logic measures, in addition to the GOF measure, is emphasized and demonstrated. Finally, analysts are advised to be mindful of the underlying assumptions adopted in the popular models, especially the assumption that the dispersion parameter is a fixed parameter, and the limitations of the functional forms used. Promising directions in which this study may be extended are also discussed.
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 | 0.029 | 0.096 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".