Estimating Dispersion Parameter of Negative Binomial Distribution for Analysis of Crash Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study is to improve the estimation of the dispersion parameter of the negative binomial distribution for modeling motor vehicle collisions. The negative binomial distribution is widely used to model count data such as traffic crash data, which often exhibit low sample mean values and small sample sizes. Under such situations, the most commonly used methods for estimating the dispersion parameter–the method of moment and the maximum likelihood estimate–may become inaccurate and unstable. A bootstrapped maximum likelihood method is proposed to improve the estimation of the dispersion parameter. The proposed method combines the technique of bootstrap resampling with the maximum likelihood estimation method to obtain better estimates of the dispersion parameter. The performance of the bootstrapped maximum likelihood estimate is compared with the method of moment and the maximum likelihood estimates through Monte Carlo simulations. To validate the simulation results, the methods are applied to observed data collected at four-leg unsignalized intersections in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Overall, the results show that the proposed bootstrap maximum likelihood method produces smaller biases and more stable estimates. The improvements are more pronounced with small samples and low sample means.
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 | 0.013 | 0.102 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".