Risk Factors Affecting Traffic Accidents at Urban Weaving Sections: Evidence from China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As a critical configuration of interchanges, the weaving section is inclined to be involved in more traffic accidents, which may bring about severe casualties. To identify the factors associated with traffic accidents at the weaving section, we employed the multinomial logistic regression approach to identify the correlation between six categories of risk factors (drivers' attributes, weather conditions, traffic characteristics, driving behavior, vehicle types and temporal-spatial distribution) and four types of traffic accidents (rear-end, side wipe, collision with fixtures and rollover) based on 768 accident samples of an observed weaving section from 2016 to 2018. The modeling results show that drivers' gender and age, weather condition, traffic density, weaving ratio, vehicle speed, lane change behavior, private cars, season, time period, day of week and accident location are important factors affecting traffic accidents at the weaving section, but they have different contributions to the four traffic accident types. The results also show that traffic density of ≥31 vehicle/100 m has the highest risk of causing rear-end accidents, weaving ration of ≥41% has the highest possibility to bring about a side wipe incident, collision with fixtures is the most likely to happen in snowy weather, and rollover is the most likely incident to occur in rainy weather.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".