Developing a correction factor to apply to animal–vehicle collision data for improved road mitigation measures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Context Road mitigation to reduce animal–vehicle collisions (AVCs) is usually based on analysis of road survey animal carcass data. This is used to identify road sections with high AVC clusters. Large mammals that are struck and die away from a road are not recorded nor considered in these analyses, reducing our understanding of the number of AVCs and the cost–benefit of road mitigation measures. Aims Our aim was to develop a method to calculate a correction factor for large mammal carcass data reported through road survey. This will improve our understanding of the magnitude and cost of AVCs. Method Citizen scientists reported animal carcasses on walking surveys along transects parallel to the highway and reported observations using a smartphone application at three sites over a 5-year period. These data were compared with traditional road survey data. Key result We found that many large mammals involved in AVCs die away from the road and are, therefore, not reported in traditional road surveys. A correction factor of 2.8 for our region can be applied to road survey data to account for injury bias error in road survey carcass data. Conclusions For large mammals, AVCs based on road survey carcass data are underestimates. To improve information about AVCs where little is known, we recommend conducting similar research to identify a correction factor to conventionally collected road survey carcass data. Implications Identifying road mitigation sites by transportation agencies tends to focus on road sections with above-threshold AVC numbers and where cost–benefit analyses deem mitigation necessary. A correction factor improves AVC estimate accuracy, improving the identification of sites appropriate for mitigation, and, ultimately, benefitting people and wildlife by reducing risks of AVCs.
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 | 0.018 | 0.135 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
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".