Influence of Multiple Freeway Design Features on Freight Traffic Safety
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since various freeway design features are simultaneously installed on roadways, it is important to assess their combined safety effects correctly. This study investigated associations between multiple roadway cross-section design features on freeways and traffic safety. In order to consider the interaction impact of multiple design features and nonlinearity of predictors concurrently, multivariate adaptive regression splines (MARS) models were developed for all types and freight vehicle crashes. In MARS models, a series of basis functions is applied to represent the space of predictors and the combined safety effectiveness of multiple design features can be interpreted by the interaction terms. The generalized linear regression models (GLMs) with negative binomial (NB) distribution were also evaluated for comparison purposes. The results determine that the MARS models show better model fitness than the NB models due to its strength to reflect the nonlinearity of crash predictors and interaction impacts among variables under different ranges. Various interaction impacts among parameters under different ranges based on knot values were found from the MARS models, whereas two interaction terms were found in the NB models. The results also showed that the combined safety effects of multiple treatments from the NB models over-estimated the real combined safety effects when using the simple multiplication approach suggested by the HSM (Highway Safety Manual). Therefore, it can be recommended that the MARS is applied to evaluate the safety impacts of multiple treatments to consider both the interaction impacts among treatments and nonlinearity issues simultaneously.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".