Validation of FHWA Crash Models for Rural Intersections: Lessons Learned
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A national-level safety analysis tool is needed to complement existing analytical tools for assessment of the safety impacts of roadway design alternatives. FHWA has sponsored the development of the Interactive Highway Safety Design Model (IHSDM), which is roadway design and redesign software that estimates the safety effects of alternative designs. Considering the importance of IHSDM in shaping the future of safety-related transportation investment decisions, FHWA justifiably sponsored research with the sole intent of independently validating some of the statistical models and algorithms in IHSDM. Statistical model validation aims to accomplish many important tasks, including ( a) assessment of the logical defensibility of proposed models, ( b) assessment of the transferability of models over future time periods and across different geographic locations, and ( c) identification of areas in which future model improvements should be made. These three activities are reported for five proposed types of rural intersection crash prediction models. The internal validation of the model revealed that the crash models potentially suffer from omitted variables that affect safety, site selection and countermeasure selection bias, poorly measured and surrogate variables, and misspecification of model functional forms. The external validation indicated the inability of models to perform on par with model estimation performance. Recommendations for improving the state of the practice from this research include the systematic conduct of carefully designed before-and-after studies, improvements in data standardization and collection practices, and the development of analytical methods to combine the results of before-and-after studies with cross-sectional studies in a meaningful and useful way.
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 | 0.062 | 0.115 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".