Empirical Investigation of Interactive Highway Safety Design Model Accident Prediction Algorithm: Rural Intersections
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One major gap in transportation system safety management is the ability to assess the safety ramifications of design changes for both new road projects and modifications to existing roads. To fulfill this need, FHWA and its many partners are developing a safety forecasting tool, the Interactive Highway Safety Design Model (IHSDM). The tool will be used by roadway design engineers, safety analysts, and planners throughout the United States. As such, the statistical models embedded in IHSDM will need to be able to forecast safety impacts under a wide range of roadway configurations and environmental conditions for a wide range of driver populations and will need to be able to capture elements of driving risk across states. One of the IHSDM algorithms developed by FHWA and its contractors is for forecasting accidents on rural road segments and rural intersections. The methodological approach is to use predictive models for specific base conditions, with traffic volume information as the sole explanatory variable for crashes, and then to apply regional or state calibration factors and accident modification factors (AMFs) to estimate the impact on accidents of geometric characteristics that differ from the base model conditions. In the majority of past approaches, AMFs are derived from parameter estimates associated with the explanatory variables. A recent study for FHWA used a multistate database to examine in detail the use of the algorithm with the base model-AMF approach and explored alternative base model forms as well as the use of full models that included nontraffic-related variables and other approaches to estimate AMFs. That research effort is reported. The results support the IHSDM methodology.
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 | 0.029 | 0.132 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".