MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2160779748

PEDESTRIAN FATAL CRASHES ON FREEWAYS IN TEXAS

2015· article· en· W2160779748 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Vichika Iragavarapu, S. Hadi Khazraee, Dominique Lord, Kay Fitzpatrick

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Research Board 94th Annual MeetingTransportation Research Board · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic and Road Safety
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPedestrianCrashTransport engineeringQuarter (Canadian coin)Poison controlHazardEngineeringGeographyEnvironmental healthMedicineComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the five-year period of 2007 through 2011, 2,232 fatal pedestrian crashes were recorded in Texas. 21% of these crashes were found to have occurred on controlled-access facilities (i.e. freeways). This is an alarmingly high number for a location where pedestrians are least expected. This study analyzed crash reports and police officer narratives to understand the characteristics and contributing factors associated with fatal pedestrian crashes on freeways. The contributing factors identified include pedestrian and driver alcohol use and dark conditions. Eighty percent of the crashes occurred after dark, almost half of which were at a location with no lighting. Intoxicated pedestrians were involved in twenty eight percent of crashes, with an average BAC of 0.20. To alleviate this problem, there may be a need for conducting a “Don’t Drink and Walk” campaign to educate the general public of dangers of walking while intoxicated, especially at night. A quarter of the crashes involved unintended pedestrians, i.e. those who were out of their vehicle due to a previous crash or a stalled vehicle. Motorists should be educated to not work on their vehicle in traffic and not to try and cross the freeway to reach a shoulder or median. It is best to wait in the vehicle with seat belt and hazard lights on until emergency services arrive.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.404
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.084
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.270 · 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.

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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransportation Research Board 94th Annual MeetingTransportation Research BoardSame topicTraffic and Road SafetyFrench-language works237,207