A random forests approach to prioritize Highway Safety Manual (HSM) variables for data collection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary The Highway Safety Manual (HSM) recommends using the empirical Bayes method with locally derived calibration factors to predict an agency's safety performance. The data needs for deriving these local calibration factors are significant, requiring very detailed roadway characteristics information. Many of these data variables are currently unavailable in most of the agencies' databases. Furthermore, it is not economically feasible to collect and maintain all the HSM data variables. This study aims to prioritize the HSM calibration variables based on their impact on crash predictions. Prioritization would help to identify influential variables for which data could be collected and maintained for continued updates, and thereby reduce intensive data collection efforts. Data were first collected for all the HSM variables from over 2400 miles of urban and suburban arterial road networks in Florida. Using 5 years (2008–2012) of crash data, a random forests data mining approach was then applied to measure the importance of each variable in crash frequency predictions for five different urban and suburban arterial facilities including two‐lane undivided, three‐lane with a two‐way left‐turn lane, four‐lane undivided, four‐lane divided, and five‐lane with a two‐way left‐turn lane. Two heuristic approaches were adopted to prioritize the variables: (i) simple ranking based on individual relative influence of variables; and (ii) clustering based on relative influence of variables within a specific range. Traffic volume was found as the most influential variable. Roadside object density, minor commercial driveway density, and minor residential driveway density variables were the other variables with significant influence on crash predictions. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.017 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".