MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2085617732 · doi:10.3141/2019-03

Estimating Dispersion Parameter of Negative Binomial Distribution for Analysis of Crash Data

2007· article· en· W2085617732 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yunlong Zhang, Zhirui Ye, Dominique Lord

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic and Road Safety
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNegative binomial distributionStatisticsDispersion (optics)Maximum likelihoodMonte Carlo methodMathematicsResamplingMoment (physics)Estimation theoryBinomial distributionCrashSample size determinationCount dataComputer sciencePoisson distributionPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.489
Threshold uncertainty score0.787

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.110
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.286 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations31
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research BoardSame topicTraffic and Road SafetyFrench-language works237,207