Can I Trust You? Estimation Models for e-Bikers Stop-Go Decision before Amber Light at Urban Intersection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Electric bike (e-bike) riders’ inappropriate go-decision, yellow-light running (YLR), could lead to accidents at intersection during the signal change interval. Given the high YLR rate and casualties in accidents, this paper aims to investigate the factors influencing the e-bikers’ go-decision of running against the amber signal. Based on 297 cases who made stop-go decisions in the signal change interval, two analytical models, namely, a base logit model and a random parameter logit model, were established to estimate the effects of contributing factors associated with e-bikers’ YLR behaviours. Besides the well-known factors, we recommend adding approaching speed, critical crossing distance, and the number of acceleration rate changes as predictor factors for e-bikers’ YLR behaviours. The results illustrate that the e-bikers’ operational characteristics (i.e., approaching speed, critical crossing distance, and the number of acceleration rate change) and individuals’ characteristics (i.e., gender and age) are significant predictors for their YLR behaviours. Moreover, taking effects of unobserved heterogeneities associated with e-bikers into consideration, the proposed random parameter logit model outperforms the base logit model to predict e-bikers’ YLR behaviours. Providing remarkable perspectives on understanding e-bikers’ YLR behaviours, the predicting probability of e-bikers’ YLR violation could improve traffic safety under mixed traffic and fully autonomous driving condition in the future.
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 | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".