MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2586148995 · doi:10.3141/2637-02

Investigating Total Annual Average Daily Traffic as a Surrogate for Motorcycle Volumes in Estimating Safety Performance Functions for Motorcycle Crashes

2017· article· en· W2586148995 on OpenAlexaff
Craig Lyon, Bhagwant Persaud, Scott Himes

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic and Road Safety
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersOhio Department of Transportation
KeywordsCrashTraffic volumeTransport engineeringEngineeringPoison controlEnvironmental scienceComputer scienceEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Data on traffic volumes are required to estimate the safety performance functions (SPFs) used to develop crash modification factors and for various safety management applications. Estimation of SPFs for motorcycle crashes can be especially challenging because few jurisdictions collect motorcycle traffic volume data systematically. To address this challenge, analyses with data from Florida, Pennsylvania, and Virginia were conducted to explore how much predictive power for an SPF was lost when motorcycle traffic volumes were not known. The results of the analyses showed that when motorcycle volumes were unknown, the use of total annual average daily traffic on its own was sufficient to develop motorcycle crash SPFs. The potential bias from missing motorcycle-specific annual average daily traffic was sufficiently negligible where it existed, not to preclude SPF development. A more significant issue in the development of motorcycle crash SPFs is to work with a crash type that is relatively rare, so that SPFs cannot be developed for all motorcycle crash types or site types.

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)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.071
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.109

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.071
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 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

Citations8
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board→Same topicTraffic and Road Safety→French-language works237,207→