MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2335897582 · doi:10.1139/cjce-2015-0449

Modeling severity of single vehicle run-off-road crashes in rural areas: model comparison and selection

2016· article· en· W2335897582 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Linfeng Gong, Wei Fan, E. Matthew Washing

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic and Road Safety
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCrashSelection (genetic algorithm)OddsEconometricsLogistic regressionLogitMixed logitOrdered logitModel selectionComputer scienceStatistical modelPoison controlStatisticsOperations researchTransport engineeringEngineeringMathematicsMachine learningMedicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Run-off-road (ROR) crashes account for a large proportion of fatalities and serious injuries to vehicle occupants, especially in rural areas. While performing crash severity analysis using discrete choice models (DCMs), researchers may be confused by the following questions: first, should an ordered or unordered model structure be used and secondly, which modeling level is more appropriate, basic or advanced? A model selection framework is developed considering the following factors: (1) model structure — ordered or unordered; (2) intrinsic deficiency of each model; (3) computational burdens; (4) complexity of parameter interpretation; and (5) model fitness. Historical ROR crash data were utilized to illustrate how to choose an appropriate DCM based on the proposed framework. Using statistical tests and comparison of evaluation and validation measurements, both the mixed logit model and the partial proportional odds model yield a reasonable performance. All factors that significantly affect the severity level of a single-vehicle ROR crash were identified as well.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.183
Teacher spread0.173 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations23
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicTraffic and Road SafetyFrench-language works237,207