Development of Crash Modification Factors for Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing Treatments
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to develop crash modification factors for four treatment types: rectangular rapid-flashing beacon (RRFB), pedestrian hybrid beacon (PHB), pedestrian refuge island (RI), and advance yield or stop markings and signs (AS). From 14 cities throughout the United States, 975 treatment and comparison sites were selected. Most of the treatment sites were selected at intersections on urban, multilane streets, because these locations present a high risk for pedestrian crashes and are where countermeasures typically are needed most. For each treatment site, relevant data were collected on the treatment characteristics, traffic, geometric, and roadway variables, and the pedestrian crashes and other crash types that occurred at each site. Cross-sectional regression models and before–after empirical Bayesian analysis techniques were used to determine the crash effects of each treatment type. All four of the treatment types were found to be associated with reductions in pedestrian crash risk, compared with the reductions at untreated sites. PHBs were associated with the greatest reduction of pedestrian crash risk (55% reduction), followed by RRFBs (47% reduction), RIs (32% reduction), and AS (25% reduction). The results for RRFBs had their basis in a limited sample and must be used with caution.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it