An iterative k-means clustering approach for identification of bicycle impediments in an urban traffic network
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The bicycle has many positive effects; however, bicyclists are more vulnerable than users of other transport modes, and the number of bicycle related injuries and fatalities are too high. We present a clustering analysis aiming to support the identification of the locations of bicyclists' perceived unsafety in an urban traffic network, so-called bicycle impediments. In particular, we present an iterative k-means clustering approach, which in contrast to standard k-means clustering, enables to remove outliers and solitary points from the data set. In our study, we used data collected by bicyclists travelling in the city of Lund, Sweden, where each data point defines a location and time of a bicyclist's perceived unsafety. The results of our study show that 1) clustering is a useful approach in order to support the identification of perceived unsafe locations for bicyclists in an urban traffic network and 2) it might be beneficial to combine different types of clustering to support the identification process. Furthermore, using the adjusted Rand index, our results indicate high robustness of our iterative k-means clustering approach.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".