MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2086902467 · doi:10.1061/41177(415)168

Macro-Level Collision Prediction Models Related to Bicycle Use

2011· article· en· W2086902467 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ahsan Alam, Gordon Lovegrove

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Transport and Accessibility
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMacroTransport engineeringCollisionMacro levelTraffic congestionComputer scienceEngineeringComputer securityEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The growing automobile transport results in severe traffic congestion, pollution and road safety problems. Bicycling, as one of sustainable transportation mode, is encouraged in most developed countries for its attributes of convenience, low cost, non-fuel use, and zero-emissions. It is generally accepted that increasing bicycle use could improve road safety. Based on a comprehensive literature review, this paper discusses potential factors influencing bicycle use and bicycle collisions. Understanding these bicycle-related factors is useful to develop new bicycle-related Collision Prediction Models (CPMs) with generalized linear regression. These CPMs can support economic justification of much-needed major bicycle infrastructure investments, and also help policy makers to promote bicycling in an effective and economic manner. Also, a brief methodology of developing such macro-level CPMs is suggested. Based on a case study of City of Kelowna, BC, Canada, several new macro-level CPMs are proposed. Results reveal that the increase of bicycle use can lead to a decrease in total collisions despite an increase in bicycle collisions, which is consistent with the actual case. Also, the bicyclerelated exposure variable, bicycle lane length, has a significantly positive relationship with dependent variables: total collision frequency. In this case, it is concluded that increasing bike lanes (on-street and off-street) can be a good measure to improve road safety. Still, aimed on the research gap, this paper identifies potential works of high interests in future.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.151
Threshold uncertainty score0.300

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.147
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.162 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicUrban Transport and Accessibility→French-language works237,207→