Real‐time identification of traffic conditions prone to injury and non‐injury crashes on freeways using genetic programming
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary This study applied the genetic programming (GP) model to identify traffic conditions prone to injury and property‐damage‐only (PDO) crashes in different traffic states on freeways. It was found that the traffic conditions prone to injury and PDO crashes can be classified into a high‐speed and a low‐speed traffic state. The random forest (RF) analyses were conducted to identify the contributing factors to injury and PDO crashes in these two traffic states. Four separate GP models were then developed to link the risks of injury and PDO crashes in two traffic states to the variables selected by the RF. An overall GP model was also developed for the combined dataset. It was found that the separate GP models that considered different traffic states and crash severity provided better predictive performance than the overall model, and the traffic flow variables that affected injury and PDO crashes were quite different across different traffic states. The proposed GP models were also compared with the traditional logistic regression models. The results suggested that the GP models outperformed the logistic regression models in terms of the prediction accuracy. More specifically, the GP models increased the prediction accuracy of injury crashes by 10.7% and 8.0% in the low‐speed and high‐speed traffic states. For PDO crashes, the GP models increased the prediction accuracy by 7.4% and 6.0% in the low‐speed and high‐speed traffic states. Copyright © 2016 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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".