MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2586263411 · doi:10.1002/atr.1447

A multiple correspondence analysis of at‐fault motorcycle‐involved crashes in Alabama

2016· article· en· W2586263411 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mohammad Jalayer, Huaguo Zhou

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Transportation · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic and Road Safety
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCrashTransport engineeringExploratory analysisEngineeringMileAeronauticsPoison controlForensic engineeringComputer securityComputer scienceEnvironmental healthGeographyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary According to the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, in 2012, more than 4950 motorcyclists were killed in traffic accidents. Compared to passenger car occupants, mile for mile, motorcyclists are more than 26 times more at risk to dying in crashes. Due to the high fatality rate associated with motorcycle crashes, factors contributing to this type of crash must be identified in order to implement effective safety countermeasures. Given that the available datasets are large and complex, identifying the key factors contributing to crashes is a challenging task. Using multiple correspondence analysis, as an exploratory data analysis technique to determine the dataset structure, we identified the roadway/environmental, motorcycle, and motorcyclist‐related variables influencing at‐fault motorcycle‐involved crashes. This study used the latest available dataset (2009 to 2013) from the Critical Analysis Reporting Environment database to study motorcycle crashes in the state of Alabama. The most significant contributors to the frequency and severity of at‐fault motorcycle‐involved crashes were found to be light conditions, time of day, driver condition, and weather conditions. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.123
Threshold uncertainty score0.244

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Citations21
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced TransportationSame topicTraffic and Road SafetyFrench-language works237,207