Failure of a Traffic Control “Fatality” Sign to Affect Pedestrians' and Motorists' Behavior
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The behavior of 643 pedestrians and 1749 motorists at two signal-controlled intersections was observed over a 2-mo. period of observation in March and November. One intersection had a coffin-shaped traffic sign with the wording "Fatality" erected during the first month of observation (March). The second intersection was identical in traffic and pedestrian volume but lacked a "Fatality" sign in either March or November. "Fatality" signs are erected and maintained by the City of Edmonton for 6 mo. whenever a pedestrian death has occurred, and they are intended to raise the awareness of both pedestrians and motorists concerning the risks at dangerous intersections. This sign had been removed for nearly 3 mo. when a follow-up observation was made in November. While female pedestrians and pedestrians over the age of 50 years showed greater caution at both intersections, the presence or absence of the "Fatality" sign had no statistically significant influence on safety. Similarly, the presence or absence of a sign did not significantly influence motorists' behavior. Of motorists 7.6% ran either amber or red traffic control lights at the two intersections. The "Fatality" sign did not affect the rates of these violations.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".