MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2120971963 · doi:10.3141/2102-08

Effects of Street Patterns on Injury Risks in Two-Vehicle Crashes

2009· article· en· W2120971963 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Shakil Mohammad Rifaat, Richard Tay

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic and Road Safety
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAlberta Motor Association Foundation for Traffic Safety
KeywordsCrashSAFERLogistic regressionTransport engineeringPoison controlInjury preventionHuman factors and ergonomicsGeographyEnvironmental healthBusinessEngineeringComputer securityComputer scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Road crashes not only claim lives and inflict injuries but also create an economic burden on society because of lost productivity. Many studies have identified factors affecting the frequency and severity of crashes. However, few, if any, studies have explored the effect of street pattern on injury risks in urban crashes. In this study, street pattern or urban form is classified into four categories: gridiron, warped parallel, loops and lollipops, and mixed patterns. Their effects on injury risk are examined together with other factors including road features, drivers’ characteristics, crash characteristics, environmental conditions, and vehicle attributes. Calgary, Alberta, Canada, is chosen as the case study, and the logistic regression model is applied with reported crash data from 2003 to 2005 to investigate various factors. The results suggest that current popular patterns, including the loops and lollipops design, are safer than the conventional gridiron pattern from an injury risk perspective in the event of a crash.

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)0.002
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 score0.155
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.324 · 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

Citations67
Published2009
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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