Prediction of Fatal and Major Injury of Drivers, Cyclists, and Pedestrians in Collisions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traffic-related deaths and severe injuries may affect every person on the roads, whether driving, cycling or walking. Toronto, the largest city in Canada and the fourth largest in North America, aims to eliminate traffic-related fatalities and serious injuries on city streets. The aim of this study is to build a prediction model using data analytics and machine learning techniques that learn from past patterns, providing additional data-driven decision support for strategic planning. A detailed exploratory analysis is presented, investigating the relationship between the variables and factors affecting collisions in Toronto. A learning-based model is proposed to predict the fatalities and severe injuries in traffic collisions through a comparison of two predictive models: Lasso Regression and Random Forest. Exploratory data analysis results reveal both spatio-temporal and behavioural patterns such as the prevalence of collisions in intersections, in the spring and summer and aggressive driving and inattentive behaviours in drivers. The prediction results show that the best predictor of injury severity for drivers, cyclists and pedestrians is Random Forest with an accuracy of 0.80, 0.89, and 0.80, respectively. The proposed methods demonstrate the effectiveness of machine learning application to traffic and collision data, both for exploratory and predictive analytics.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".