MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2376351658 · doi:10.14288/1.0063261

Community-based, macro-level collision prediction models

2010· article· en· W2376351658 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Gordon Lovegrove

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHuman Mobility and Location-Based Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMacroCollisionComputer scienceComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The burden on communities due to the enormous economic and social costs associated with road collisions has been recognized worldwide as a major problem of epidemic proportions. Given the magnitude and persistence of the problem, spanning many decades, organizations worldwide have initiated engineering and research programs to improve road safety. There are two main transportation engineering approaches to improving the safety performance of the road component: reactive and proactive. The reactive or traditional engineering approach has been to address road safety in reaction to existing collision histories. While it has proven to be very successful, road safety authorities and researchers are also pursuing more proactive engineering approaches. Rather than working reactively to improve the safety of existing facilities, the proactive engineering approach to road safety improvement focuses on predicting and improving the safety of planned facilities. Reactive and proactive programs both rely heavily on reliable empirical techniques, including collision prediction models (CPMs). Reactive programs use micro-level collision prediction models, which focus on a single facility. Reliable micro-level C PM methods and techniques have been well researched and refined. However, while micro-level CPMs successfully support the reactive engineering approach, several shortcomings have been identified related to unsuccessful attempts by planners and engineers to use them in proactive road safety planning. Given these shortcomings of micro-level CPMs in planning-level (i.e. macro-level) road safety evaluations, there exists a research gap of reliable empirical tools to pursue road safety in a proactive manner. In view of this lack of reliable macro-level empirical tools, the main goal of this thesis was to develop macro-level CPMs, and to provide guidelines for their use by planners and engineers, so that road safety could be explicitly considered and reliably estimated in all stages of the road planning process. The approach taken included developing macro-level CPMs using extensive data extraction and Generalized Linear Regression Modeling (GLM) regression techniques, and then developing guidelines for use of those models based on several case studies of road safety planning applications. This thesis describes the results of that research on the development and use of community-based, macro-level CPMs using data from 577 neighbourhoods or Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs) across the Greater Vancouver Regional District in British Columbia, Canada. The models predict mean collision frequency based on associations with variables from one of four neighbourhood characteristic themes, including exposure, socio-demographics (S-D), Transportation Demand Management (TDM), and network. A set of model use guidelines has also been proposed. To test whether the developed models and guidelines could be practical and relevant for practitioners, this research has also demonstrated the use of macro-level CPMs in several reactive and proactive case studies. The development of models and model-use guidelines in this research, together with their application in several case studies, have been offered as contributions toward addressing the research gap that has limited the effectiveness of the proactive engineering approach in road safety improvement programs. It is believed that these tools will contribute significantly to improved safety planning decisions by community planners and engineers, significantly enhanced effectiveness in road safety improvement programs, and, ultimately, to long term social and economic benefits for all communities.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.098

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0050.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.195 · 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

Citations14
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)Same topicHuman Mobility and Location-Based AnalysisFrench-language works237,207