MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2517445167 · doi:10.14346/jkosos.2016.31.3.143

A Study on Practical Method of Utility Curve for Deciding Priority Order of the Improvements in Traffic Safety Audit

2016· article· en· W2517445167 on OpenAlex
Ji Hye Choi, Soon Yang Kang, Ji Hong, Joon Beom Lim

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Korean Society of Safety · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation, Safety, and Science Studies
Canadian institutionsTransport Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnalytic hierarchy processTransport engineeringAuditOrder (exchange)Black spotTraffic accidentPlan (archaeology)Index (typography)Computer scienceOperations researchRisk analysis (engineering)EngineeringBusinessGeographyFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recently, a massive loss of life and property is occurring in Korea due to traffic accidents, with the rapid increase in cars. For improvement of traffic safety, the Korea Transportation Safety Authority intensively analyzes accident data in local governments with low traffic safety index, performs a field investigation to extract problems and offers local governments improvements for problems, by conducting the 'Special Survey of Actual Conditions of Traffic Safety' each year, starting 2008. But local governments cannot strongly push forward the improvement projects due to the limited budget and the uncertainty of the improvement plan effects. Therefore, this study suggested a model which applied the Utility concept to the AHP theory, in order to efficiently decide a priority of the improvement plans in accident black spots in consideration of the limited budget of local governments. The number of accidents in each spot for improvement and accident severity, traffic volume, pedestrian volume, the improvement project cost and the accident reduction effect were chosen as evaluation factors for deciding a priority, and data about the improvement plan costs and the accident reduction effects, traffic accidents and traffic volume in the spots to undergo the special research on the real condition of traffic accident in the past were collected from the existing studies. Then, regression analysis was carried out and the Utility Curve of each evaluation factor was computed. Based on the AHP analysis findings, this study devised a priority decision method which calculated the weight and the utility function of each evaluation factor and compared the total utility values. The AHP analysis findings showed that among the evaluation factors, accident severity had the biggest importance and it was followed by the improvement plan cost, the number of accidents, the improvement effect, traffic volume and pedestrian volume. The calculated utility function shows a rise in utility, as the variables of the 5 evaluation factors; the number of accidents, accident severity, the improvement plan effect, traffic volume and pedestrian volume increase and a fall in utility, as the variables of the improvement plan cost increase, since the improvement plan cost is included in the budget spent by a local government.

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.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.355
Threshold uncertainty score0.575

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.345 · 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