Comparative Analysis of Risky Behaviors of Electric Bicycles at Signalized Intersections
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this study was to compare the risky behaviors of e-bike, e-scooter, and bicycle riders as they were crossing signalized intersections. METHODS: Pearson's chi-square test was used to identify whether there were significant differences in the risky behaviors among e-bike, e-scooter, and bicycle riders. Binary logit models were developed to evaluate how various variables affected the behaviors of 2-wheeled vehicle riders at signalized intersections. Field data collection was conducted at 13 signalized intersections in 2 cities (Nanjing and Kunming) in China. RESULTS: Three different types of risky behaviors were identified, including stop beyond the stop line, riding in motorized lanes, and riding against traffic. Two-wheeled vehicle riders' gender and age and traffic conditions were significantly associated with the behaviors of 2-wheeled vehicle riders at the selected signalized intersections. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to e-bike and bicycle riders, e-scooter riders are more likely to take risky behaviors. More specifically, they are more likely to ride in motorized lanes and ride against traffic.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".