Injury severity analysis: comparison of multilevel logistic regression models and effects of collision data aggregation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper describes an empirical study aiming at identifying the main differences between different logistic regression models and collision data aggregation methods that are commonly applied in road safety literature for modeling collision severity. In particular, the research compares three popular multilevel logistic models (i.e., sequential binary logit models, ordered logit models, and multinomial logit models) as well as three data aggregation methods (i.e., occupant based, vehicle based, and collision based). Six years of collision data (2001–2006) from 31 highway routes from across the province of Ontario, Canada were used for this analysis. It was found that a multilevel multinomial logit model has the best fit to the data than the other two models while the results obtained from occupant-based data are more reliable than those from vehicle- and collision-based data. More importantly, while generally consistent in terms of factors that were found to be significant between different models and data aggregation methods, the effect size of each factor differ substantially, which could have significant implications for evaluating the effects of different safety-related policies and countermeasures.
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 | 0.073 | 0.202 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".