Analysis of Crash Rates at Freeway Diverge Areas using Bayesian Tobit Modeling Framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goal of this study is to evaluate the impact of various risk factors on crash rates at freeway diverge areas. Crash rates data for a three-year period from 367 freeway diverge areas were used for analysis. Four candidate Tobit models were developed and compared under the Bayesian framework: a traditional Tobit model; a random parameters Tobit (RP-Tobit) model; a grouped random parameters Tobit (GRP-Tobit) model; and a random intercept Tobit (RI-Tobit). The results showed that the RP-Tobit model performs best with highest value of R d 2 as well as lowest Mean Absolute Deviance (MAD) and Deviance Information Criteria (DIC), indicating the importance of accounting for unobserved heterogeneity to improve the model fit. Both the GRP-Tobit and the RI-Tobit models provide better performance than the traditional Tobit model. The model results showed that crash rates at freeway diverge areas were positively associated with mainline annual average daily traffic (AADT) and negatively associated with ramp AADT, indicating the different mechanisms of the impact of traffic volume on crash rates at freeway diverge areas. Lane-balanced design and high speed limits at freeway diverge areas have a negative effect on crash rates. The number of lanes on mainline and ramp length have significant heterogeneous effects on crash rates across observations. The RP-Tobit model provides a more comprehensive understanding of the heterogeneous effects of risk factors on crash rates across observations.
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 | 0.013 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".