MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2599690667 · doi:10.2495/safe-v7-n1-1-9

Analysis of intrinsic factors contributing to urban road crashes

2017· article· en· W2599690667 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Şerban Raicu, Dorinela Costescu, Ştefan Burciu

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Safety and Security Engineering · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic and Road Safety
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUnitatea Executiva pentru Finantarea Invatamantului Superior, a Cercetarii, Dezvoltarii si Inovarii
KeywordsTransport engineeringPoison controlInjury preventionHuman factors and ergonomicsOccupational safety and healthSuicide preventionEnvironmental healthForensic engineeringEnvironmental scienceEngineeringMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The impact of risk associated with traffic is rarely included in the evaluation of projects for increasing urban traffic fluency, although the social costs of traffic crashes are estimated as very high.Lately, more frequently, the risk associated with urban road traffic is included, as a supplementary criterion, in the selection of the best urban planning scenarios, in order to a-priory minimize the number of crashes.Therefore, we aim to develop tools to enable the analysis of different intrinsic factors (characteristics of urban area and of road network) on traffic safety performances.The paper presents an analysis of the traffic crashes registered in Bucharest in the period 2008-2014.Following the analysis, the highest values of the average number of crashes were identified for signalized intersections that include tram infrastructure.Hence, the study is continued for this category of network features for which a model to estimate traffic crashes is proposed.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Safety and Security EngineeringSame topicTraffic and Road SafetyFrench-language works237,207