Targeting Fatal Traffic Collision Risk from Prior Non-Fatal Collisions in Toronto
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Research question How accurately can all locations of 44 fatal collisions in 1 year be forecasted across 1403 micro-areas in Toronto, based upon locations of all 1482 non-fatal collisions in the preceding 4 years? Data All 1482 non-fatal traffic collisions from 2008 through 2011 and all 44 fatal traffic collisions in 2012 in the City of Toronto, Ontario, were geocoded from public records to 1403 micro-areas called ‘hexagonal tessellations’. Methods The total number of non-fatal traffic collisions in Period 1 (2008 through 2011) was summed within each micro-area. The areas were then classified into seven categories of frequency of non-fatal collisions: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 or more. We then divided the number of micro-areas in each category in Period 1 into the total number of fatal traffic collisions in each category in Period 2 (2012). The sensitivity and specificity of forecasting fatal collision risk based on prior non-fatal collisions were then calculated for five different targeting strategies. Findings The micro-locations of 70.5% of fatal collisions in Period 2 had experienced at least 1 non-fatal collision in Period 1. In micro-areas that had zero non-fatal collisions during Period 1, only 1.7% had a fatal collision in Period 2. Across all areas, the probability of a fatal collision in the area during Period 2 increased with the number of non-fatal collisions in Period 1, with 6 or more non-fatal collisions in Period 1 yielding a risk of fatal collision in Period 2 that was 8.7 times higher than in areas with no non-fatal collisions. This pattern is evidence that targeting 25% of micro-areas effectively could cut total traffic fatalities in a given year by up to 50%. Conclusion Highly elevated risks of traffic fatalities can be forecasted based on prior non-fatal collisions, targeting a smaller portion of the city for more concentrated investment in saving lives.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".