Investigating effects of asphalt pavement conditions on traffic accidents in Tennessee based on the pavement management system (PMS)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Pavement maintenance is essential for ensuring good riding quality and avoiding traffic congestion, air pollution, and accidents. Improving road safety is one of the most important objectives for pavement management systems. This study utilized the Tennessee Pavement Management System (PMS) and Accident History Database (AHD) to investigate the relationship between accident frequency and pavement distress variables. Focusing on four urban interstates with asphalt pavements, divided median types, and 55 mph speed limits, 21 Negative Binomial Regression models were developed for predicting various types of traffic accident frequencies based on different pavement condition variables, including rut depth (RD), International Roughness Index (IRI), and Present Serviceability Index (PSI). The modeling results indicated that the RD models did not perform well, except for predicting accidents at night and accidents under rain weather conditions; whereas, IRI and PSI were always significant prediction variables in all types of accident models. Comparing the models goodness‐of‐fit results, it was found that the PSI models had a better performance in crash frequency prediction than the RD models and IRI models. This study suggests that the PSI accident prediction models should be considered as a comprehensive approach to integrate the highway safety factors into the pavement management system. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".