MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3000412955 · doi:10.1155/2020/2675197

Analysis on Illegal Crossing Behavior of Pedestrians at Signalized Intersections Based on Bayesian Network

2020· article· en· W3000412955 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yingying Ma, Siyuan Lu, Yuanyuan Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Transportation · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic and Road Safety
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDepartment of Education of Guangdong ProvinceNatural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province
KeywordsSchema crosswalkTransport engineeringIntersection (aeronautics)Computer scienceLevel crossingPedestrian crossingGeographyPedestrianEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pedestrians do not always comply with the crossing rules of when and/or where to cross the road at signalized intersections. This risky behavior tends to undermine greatly the effectiveness of safety countermeasures at such locations. Thus, it is very important to understand illegal behavior to develop more effective and targeting measures. In order to address the problem, this paper aimed to analyze characteristics of illegal crossings and their impact on behavior choice. Firstly, illegal crossing behaviors at signalized intersections were classified into two categories, including “crossing at a red light” and “crossing outside of a crosswalk.” Secondly, two sets of data were collected to understand the behaviors. One set of data was collected from video-based observation conducted at 3 signalized intersections in Guangzhou, China, capturing 3334 valid illegal crossing cases in total. Another set of data, from a questionnaire survey conducted online, resulted in 275 valid responses. Finally, presentational characteristics of illegal crossings at signalized intersection were analyzed and two Bayesian network-based behavior models were developed to investigate the characteristics and their impacts on the two types of illegal crossing behaviors, “crossing at a red light” and “crossing outside of a crosswalk,” respectively. Findings reveal that, (i) illegal crossings occur at various types of signalized intersections, with a higher probability for “crossing outside of a crosswalk” compared to “crossing at a red light;” (ii) Arc routing crossing has the highest probability to occur at signalized intersections compared to other types of out-side-crosswalk crossings. (iii) The location of origin and destination of a pedestrian has a significant effect on crossing outside of a crosswalk, the location of origin and destination of “one is inside of a crosswalk and another is outside of a crosswalk” has a highest proportion. These findings provide better understanding of illegal crossings and their impact factors so that the effectiveness of management and control of pedestrians at signalized intersections can be improved.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations29
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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