MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2347074058 · doi:10.1080/17457300.2016.1177551

The impact of pedestrian countdown signals on single and two vehicle motor vehicle collisions: a quasi-experimental study

2016· article· en· W2347074058 on OpenAlexaffabout
Benjamin G. Escott, Sarah A. Richmond, Andrew R. Willan, Bheeshma Ravi

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Injury Control and Safety Promotion · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic and Road Safety
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenPublic Health OntarioUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRate ratioCountdownPoisson regressionPoison controlConfidence intervalPedestrianCollisionPoisson distributionInjury preventionIncidence (geometry)MedicineStatisticsSimulationDemographyEngineeringMathematicsTransport engineeringPopulationComputer scienceMedical emergencyComputer securityEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this study was to examine the impact of pedestrian countdown signals (PCS) on the rate of motor vehicle collisions (MVCs) in Toronto, Canada. A quasi-experimental design was used to compare rates of single and two vehicle MVCs before and after installation of PCS in Toronto, Canada between January 2005 and December 2009. Collision incidence rates were compared using Poisson regression analyses with adjustment for relevant cofounders and reported as incidence rate ratios (IRR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Secondary analyses were performed on subsets of collisions by collision type and injury severity. A total of 94,175 MVCs occurred at or near 1965 intersections at which PCS were installed over the five-year study period. Overall, the MVC incidence rate increased 7.5% (IRR = 1.075; 95% CI: 1.042-1.109; p < 0.0001) after installation of PCS. The installation of PCS led to an increase in MVCs. PCS may have an unintended consequence of increasing the rate of MVCs.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.777
Threshold uncertainty score0.264

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.277
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations8
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Injury Control and Safety PromotionSame topicTraffic and Road SafetyFrench-language works237,207