Driver Behavior Classification at Stop-Controlled Intersections Using Video-Based Trajectory Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding how drivers behave at stop-controlled intersection is of critical importance for the control and management of an urban traffic system. It is also a critical element of consideration in the burgeoning field of smart infrastructure and connected and autonomous vehicles (CAV). A number of past efforts have been devoted to investigating the driver behavioral patterns when they pass through stop-controlled intersections. However, the majority of these studies have been limited to qualitative descriptions and analyses of driver behavior due to the unavailability of high-resolution vehicle data and sound methodology for classifying various driver behaviors. In this paper, we introduce a methodology that uses computer-vision vehicle trajectory data and unsupervised clustering techniques to classify different types of driver behaviors, infer the underlying mechanism and compare their impacts on safety. Two major types of behaviors are investigated, including vehicle stopping behavior and vehicle approaching patterns, using two clustering algorithms: a bisecting K-means algorithm for classifying stopping behavior, and the improved density-based spatial clustering of applications with noise (DBSCAN) algorithm for classifying vehicle approaching patterns. The methodology is demonstrated using a case study involving five stop-controlled intersections in Montreal, Canada. The results from the analysis show that there exist five distinctive classes of driver behaviors representing different levels of risk in both vehicle stopping and approaching processes. This finding suggests that the proposed methodology could be applied to develop new safety surrogate measures and risk analysis methods for network screening and countermeasure analyses of stop-controlled 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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".