Survey of pedestrians' crossing time at non‐signalized mid‐block street crossing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary At non‐signalized mid‐block street crossings in China's cities, pedestrians often weave between motor vehicle flows. This paper investigated the influence patterns of the gender and age of pedestrians, the presence of a pedestrian group, vehicles' interference and the crossing direction on the crossing time at non‐signalized mid‐block street crossings in Changsha, China. The results show that the crossing speed is approximately 1–1.1 m/s; the crossing time increases with increasing age, and the crossing speed of a pedestrian will be quicker when the time gap between the pedestrian and the oncoming vehicle is smaller if he/she decides to cross. This paper also analyzed the crossing time pattern when pedestrians cross lane by lane and found that pedestrians spend the most time crossing the first lane and the least time crossing the middle lane, regardless of whether they are crossing from the curb to the central island or from the central island to the curb. The crossing speed is an important input to the design of pedestrian facilities, so these findings can be applied to the assessment of pedestrian crossing safety in China's cities and can provide a basis for the design of pedestrian crossing facilities. 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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".