MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2839212216 · doi:10.1139/cjce-2018-0060

Are school zones effective in reducing speeds and improving safety?

2018· article· en· W2839212216 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Danyang Sun, Karim El‐Basyouny, Shewkar Ibrahim, Amy Kim

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic and Road Safety
Canadian institutionsCanadian Patient Safety InstituteUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPercentileSpillover effectSpeed limitEnvironmental scienceTraffic speedCollisionPoison controlTransport engineeringStatisticsMedicineComputer scienceEngineeringMathematicsEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes a study undertaken to assess the speed and safety effects of reducing speed limits from 50 to 30 km/h in school zones. Mean speeds and 85th percentile speeds were reduced by 12.2 and 11.6 km/h, respectively. Speed variation was also reduced, and the speed cumulative distributions shifted to the left, indicating further reductions for all speed ranges. The safety evaluation results revealed fatal and injury collisions were significantly reduced by 45.3% and injuries to vulnerable road users were reduced by 55.3%. In fact, for every 1 km/h reduction in mean speed, fatal and injury crashes were reduced by about 4%, which is consistent with findings from previous research. Neither spatial nor temporal collision migration or spillover effects were significant factors in the analysis. Consequently, the results of this study provide strong evidence that reducing speed limits to 30 km/h in school zones can bring significant safety benefits by reducing vehicular speeds and fatal and injury crashes.

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)0.007
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.168
Teacher spread0.164 · 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

Citations33
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicTraffic and Road SafetyFrench-language works237,207