Modeling Drivers’ Stopping Behaviors during Yellow Intervals at Intersections considering Group Heterogeneity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stopping behavior during yellow intervals is one of the critical driver behaviors correlated with intersection safety. As the main index of stopping behavior, stopping time is typically described by Accelerated Failure Time (AFT) model. In this study, the comparison of survival curves of stopping time confirms the existence of group specific effects on drivers. However, the AFT model is developed based on the homogeneity assumption. To overcome this drawback, shared frailty survival models are developed for stopping time analysis, which consider the group heterogeneity of drivers. The results show that log-logistic based frailty model with age as a grouping variable has the best goodness of fit and prediction accuracy. Analysis of the models’ parameters indicates that phone status, maximum deceleration, vehicles’ speed, and the distance to stopping line at the onset of the yellow signal have significant impacts on stopping time. Additionally, heterogeneity analysis illustrates that young, middle-aged, and female drivers are more likely to brake harshly and stop past the stop line, which may block the intersection. Furthermore, drivers, who are more familiar with traffic environments, are more possible to make reasonable stopping decisions approaching intersections. The results can be utilized by traffic authorities to implement road safety strategies, which will help reduce traffic incidents caused by improper stopping behavior at intersections.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".