MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3107579474 · doi:10.3390/ijgi9120722

From Massive Trajectory Data to Traffic Modeling for Better Behavior Prediction in a Usage-Based Insurance Context

2020· article· en· W3107579474 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Philippe Blais, Thierry Badard, Thierry Duchesne, Marie‐Pier Côté

Bibliographic record

VenueISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic Prediction and Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Computer scienceExplanatory powerTrajectoryData miningGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Usage-Based Insurance (UBI) is an insurance framework that has made its appearance in the last few years. It allows direct measurement of the traveling of policyholders, hence the growing interest of the industry to better understand driving behaviors. UBI generates large data volumes, from which events can be extracted, like harsh brakes or accelerations. Still, these events are measured without contextual information, which limits their explanatory power. Traffic is one of these types of contextual information that may have great potential, but access to such data remains an issue. Solutions exist, like traffic data from external providers, but for insurance companies that conduct business over large areas, this could result in very large costs. This paper demonstrates that data from insurance companies acquired via UBI can be used to model traffic. A method based on link travel time is proposed and tested on four Canadian cities. Then, routes created with the model are compared with those created using Google Maps. The results show that for 38 routes with an average length of around 5 km, the difference between the travel time of the routes of the proposed model and Google Maps is as small as one second on average.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.627
Threshold uncertainty score0.472

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.228 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueISPRS International Journal of Geo-InformationSame topicTraffic Prediction and Management TechniquesFrench-language works237,207