Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adverse weather conditions can increase travel risk. Understanding how drivers react to adverse weather, such as rainfall, can aid in the understanding of road safety patterns and traffic operations. This information can in turn be used to improve driver education as well as highway operation through improved signing or the introduction of intelligent highway systems. Hourly rainfall data collected from the Pearson International Airport weather station and City of Toronto traffic data collected at the study site on the Gardiner expressway were used to create event and control pairs. In total, 115 hours with rainfall were matched to control data one week before or after the rainfall event. The traffic sensor at the study site collected speed, volume, and occupancy data at 20-second intervals, which was aggregated to five minutes. In addition, speed deviation and headway data at the 5-minute interval were used for analysis purposes. Two methods were used to test the effects of rainfall on traffic variables and the relationships between them. Matched pair t-tests were used to determine the magnitude of change between event and control conditions for the volume, speed, speed deviation, and headway variables for congested and uncongested traffic conditions. In addition, stepwise multiple linear regression was used to test the effects of rainfall on speed-volume and volume-occupancy relationships. Results of the matched pair t-tests indicated that volumes, speeds, and speed deviations dropped in event conditions, while headways increased slightly. Changes tended to be greater for congested than uncongested conditions. Linear regression results indicated that changes in speed were sensitive to volume conditions, and changes in volume were sensitive to occupancy, although only to a limited extent. Overall, drivers respond to rainfall conditions by reducing both speed and speed deviations, and increasing headway. Reductions in speed are larger in congested conditions, while increases in headway are smaller. Taken in combination, drivers are taking positive steps in order to either maintain or improve safety levels.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".