Identification of crash hotspots using kernel density estimation and kriging methods: a comparison
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a study aimed at comparing the outcome of two geostatistical-based approaches, namely kernel density estimation (KDE) and kriging, for identifying crash hotspots in a road network. Aiming at locating high-risk locations for potential intervention, hotspot identification is an integral component of any comprehensive road safety management programs. A case study was conducted with historical crash data collected between 2003 and 2007 in the Hennepin County of Minnesota, U.S. The two methods were evaluated on the basis of a prediction accuracy index (PAI) and a comparison in hotspot ranking. It was found that, based on the PAI measure, the kriging method outperformed the KDE method in its ability to detect hotspots, for all four tested groups of crash data with different times of day. Furthermore, the lists of hotspots identified by the two methods were found to be moderately different, indicating the importance of selecting the right geostatistical method for hotspot identification. Notwithstanding the fact that the comparison study presented herein is limited to one case study, the findings have shown the promising perspective of the kriging technique for road safety analysis.
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 | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".