MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The impact of pedestrian countdown signals on pedestrian–motor vehicle collisions: a quasi-experimental study

2011· article· en· W2102292657 on OpenAlexaffabout
Andi Camden, Ron Buliung, Linda Rothman, Colin Macarthur, Andrew Howard

Bibliographic record

VenueInjury Prevention · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic and Road Safety
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenPublic Health OntarioUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPedestrianCountdownEngineeringPoison controlTransport engineeringAeronauticsForensic engineeringAutomotive engineeringAerospace engineeringMedicineMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether pedestrian countdown signals (PCS) reduce pedestrian-motor vehicle collisions in the city of Toronto, Canada. METHODS: A quasi-experimental study design was used to evaluate the effect of PCS on the number of pedestrian-motor vehicle collisions in the city of Toronto, from January 2000 to December 2009. Each intersection acted as its own control. We compared the number of pedestrian-motor vehicle collisions per intersection-month before and after the intervention. Stratified models were used to evaluate effect modification by pedestrian age, injury severity and location (urban vs inner suburbs). Poisson regression analysis with repeated measures (generalised estimating equations) was used to estimate the RR and 95% CI. RESULTS: The analysis included 9262 pedestrian-motor vehicle collisions at 1965 intersections. The RR of collisions after PCS installation was 1.014 (95% CI 0.958 to 1.073), indicating no statistically significant effect of PCS on collisions. There was no evidence to suggest effect modification between PCS and collisions by age, injury severity or location. CONCLUSION: The installation of PCS at 1965 signalised intersections in Toronto did not reduce the number of pedestrian-motor vehicle collisions at these intersections.

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)0.000
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.608
Threshold uncertainty score0.491

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.277 · 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

Citations16
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInjury PreventionSame topicTraffic and Road SafetyFrench-language works237,207