MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2562203785 · doi:10.3141/2586-10

Pedestrian Crosswalk Safety at Nonsignalized Crossings During Nighttime: Use of Thermal Video Data and Surrogate Safety Measures

2016· article· en· W2562203785 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ting Fu, Luis Miranda-Moreno, Nicolas Saunier

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic and Road Safety
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique MontréalMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSchema crosswalkVisibilityPedestrianPedestrian crossingComputer scienceTransport engineeringPoison controlEnvironmental scienceEngineeringMeteorologyGeographyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper proposes a methodology to evaluate crosswalk pedestrian safety at nighttime by using surrogate safety measures derived from thermal video data. The methodology is illustrated for two unsignalized crosswalk locations in downtown Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Video recordings from a thermal camera were used to compare nighttime and daytime safety conditions with surrogate safety measures that included vehicle approaching speed, postencroachment time (PET), yielding compliances, and conflict rates. A disaggregate measure of pedestrian exposure that excludes noninteracting road users is also proposed. A thermal camera was used to alleviate issues pertaining to low visibility at night for video analysis when road users, especially pedestrians, are difficult to track. The results showed that the thermal-video–based methodology could effectively collect interaction data at night regardless of lighting conditions. Through the use of thermal video data and the methodology proposed in this paper, the interactions between crossing pedestrians and motor vehicles, with related measures such as PET and speed, could be analyzed to evaluate the effect of different crosswalk treatments on pedestrian safety in low-visibility conditions.

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)0.005
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.320
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.099
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations46
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research BoardSame topicTraffic and Road SafetyFrench-language works237,207