Comparing Factors Affecting Injury Severity of Passenger Car and Truck Drivers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to explore factors affecting passenger car and truck driver injury severity in passenger car-truck crashes. Police-reported crash data from 2007 to 2017 in Canada are collected. Two-vehicle crashes involving one truck and one passenger car are extracted for modeling. Different injury severities are not equally represented. To address the data imbalance issue, this study applies four different data imbalance treatment approaches, including over-sampling, under-sampling, a hybrid method, and a cost-sensitive learning method. To test the performances of different classifiers, five classification models are used, including multinomial logistic regression, Naive Bayes, Classification and Regression Tree, support vector machine, and eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost). In both the passenger car driver and truck driver injury severity analysis, XGBoost combined with cost-sensitive learning generates the best results in terms of G-mean, area under the curve, and overall accuracy. Additionally, the Shapley Additive Explanations (SHAP) approach is adopted to interpret the result of the best-performing model. Most of the explanatory variables have similar effects on passenger car and truck driver fatality risks. Nevertheless, six variables exhibit opposite effects, including the age of the passenger car driver, crash hour, the passenger car age, road surface condition, weather condition and the truck age. Results of this study could provide some valuable insights for improving truck traffic safety. For instance, properly installing traffic control devices could be an effective way to reduce fatality risks in passenger car-truck crashes. Besides, passenger car drivers should be extremely cautious when driving between midnight to 6 am on truck corridors.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".