MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2996901405 · doi:10.1155/2019/9873832

Crash-Prone Section Identification for Mountainous Highways Considering Multi-Risk Factors Coupling Effect

2019· article· en· W2996901405 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Gang Xue, Huiying Wen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Transportation · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic and Road Safety
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsCoupling (piping)Section (typography)CrashIdentification (biology)Transport engineeringEnvironmental scienceComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In order to identify crash-prone sections of the highways in mountainous areas professionally and exclusively, the common phenomena of “sharp turns”, “continuous long downhill”, “multiple tunnels”, “dangerous roadside environment”, and complex and changeable meteorological environment, which all imply risk factors of the mountainous highways, are comprehensively considered. Utilizing the improved classical coupling model, the coupling mechanism of the risk factors is revealed, and the coupling model of the traffic risk factors is constructed, by which the coupling degrees of multi-risk factors couplings are calculated respectively. Based on the coupling degrees of the above factors, the concept of vehicle operation risk index (VORI) of the mountainous highway is introduced and its numerical value is quantified as the basis for identifying the crash-prone sections. The 21 km of Songming to Huize section of the Songdai Highway in the Yunnan Province of China is selected as an example, and the good applicability of the identification model is verified.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations13
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced TransportationSame topicTraffic and Road SafetyFrench-language works237,207