Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, the Negative Binominal Regression (NBR) technique was used to develop crash severity prediction model in Jordan. The primary crash data needed were obtained from Jordan Traffic Institute for the year 2014. The collected data included number and severity of crashes. The data were organized into eight crash contributing factors including: age, age and gender, drivers’ faults, environmental factors, crash time, roadway defects and vehicle defects. First of all, descriptive analysis of the crash contributing factors was done to identify and quantify factors affecting crash severity, then the NBR technique using R-statistic software was used for the development of the crash prediction model that linked crash severities to the identified factors. The NBR model results indicated that severe crashes decreased significantly as the age of both male and female drivers increased. They significantly decreased as the environmental conditions improved. In addition, sever crashes were significantly higher during weekdays than weekends and in the morning than in the evening. The results also indicated that sever crashes significantly increased as drivers have faults while driving. In addition, mirror and brake deficits were found to be the only factors among all possible vehicle deficits factors that contributed significantly to severe crashes. Finally, it was found that the results of the NBR model are in agreement with the descriptive analysis of the crash contributing factors.
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 | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.005 |
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".