Urban Arterial Accident Prediction Models with Spatial Effects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper investigates the inclusion of spatial effects in accident prediction models. Two types of spatial modeling techniques–-the Gaussian conditional autoregressive (CAR) and the multiple membership (MM) models–-were compared with the traditional Poisson–lognormal model. A variation of the MM model (extended MM or EMM) was also investigated to study the effect of clustering segments within the same corridor on spatial correlation. Full Bayes estimation was used by means of the Markov chain Monte Carlo methodology to estimate the parameters. The study made use of 281 urban road segments in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Various traffic and geometric variables were included in the accident prediction models. The models were compared in terms of their goodness of fit and inference. For the data set under consideration, the results showed that annual average daily traffic, business land use, the number of lanes between signals, and the density of unsignalized intersections have significant positive impact on the number of accidents. The fitted CAR and MM models had significant estimates for both heterogeneity and spatial correlation parameters. The best-fit model was EMM, followed by CAR. Furthermore, a significant portion of the total variability was explained by the spatial correlation. A significant correlation was also found between the heterogeneity and spatial effects. This may be because neighboring road segments typically have similar environmental and geographic characteristics and thereby form a cluster with similar accident occurrence. The results also showed that corridor variation was a major component of total variability and that the spatial effects have been considerably alleviated by clustering segments within the same corridor.
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 | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".