An extreme gradient boosting method for identifying the factors contributing to crash/near-crash events: a naturalistic driving study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the research efforts for reducing traffic accidents, the number of global annual vehicle accidents is still on the rise. This continues to motivate researchers to examine the factors contributing to crash and near-crash events (CNC). Recently, many studies attempted to identify the associated crash factors using naturalistic driving study (SHRP2-NDS) data. Despite the many classifiers developed in the literature, the high dimensionality and multicollinearity within the SHRP2-NDS data limit the accuracy and reliability of the developed models. This study develops an extreme gradient boosting (XGB) classifier, robust to multicollinearity, using the SHRP2-NDS dataset for identifying the factors contributing to CNC events. The performance of the XGB classifier is evaluated against three other advanced machine-learning algorithms. Results indicate that the XGB model outperformed the other models with a detection accuracy of 85% and identified the “driver behavior” and “intersection influence” as the most contributing factors to CNC detection.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".