Before-and-After Empirical Bayes Evaluation of Citywide Installation of Driver Feedback Signs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Speeding is a leading factor that contributes to approximately one-third of all fatal collisions. Over the past decades, various passive/active countermeasures have been adopted to improve drivers’ compliance to posted speed limits to improve traffic safety. The driver feedback sign (DFS) is considered a low-cost innovative intervention that is being widely used, in growing numbers, in urban cities to provide positive guidance for motorists. Despite their documented effectiveness in reducing speeds, limited literature exists on their impact on reducing collisions. This study addresses this gap by designing a before-and-after study using the empirical Bayes method for a large sample of urban road segments. Safety performance functions and yearly calibration factors are developed to quantify the sole effectiveness of DFS using large-scale spatial data and a set of reference road segments within the city of Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Likewise, the study followed a detailed economic analysis based on three collision-costing criteria to investigate if DFS was indeed a cost-effective intervention. The results showed significant collision reductions that ranged from 32.5% to 44.9%, with the highest reductions observed for severe speed-related collisions. The results further attested that the benefit–cost ratios, combining severe and property-damage-only collisions, ranged from 8.2 to 20.2 indicating that DFS can be an extremely economical countermeasure. The findings from this study can provide transportation agencies in need of implementing cost-efficient countermeasures with a tool they need to design a long-term strategic deployment plan to ensure the safety of traveling public.
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 | 0.032 | 0.091 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".