MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3164039157 · doi:10.18280/ijsse.110210

Assessment and Prioritization of the Critical Factors Triggering Road Accidents in India

2021· article· en· W3164039157 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
K. Venkatesh Raja, Muruganantham Ponnusamy, G. Thamarai Selvi, R Saravanakumar, M. Ashok, V. Nagaraj

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Safety and Security Engineering · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic and Road Safety
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrioritizationRisk assessmentIdentification (biology)Scale (ratio)PopulationRisk analysis (engineering)Transport engineeringPoison controlHuman factors and ergonomicsOccupational safety and healthEngineeringForensic engineeringEnvironmental healthBusinessComputer securityComputer scienceMedicineGeographyCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Road safety and its risk assessment has become very significant due to the increasing population and usage of transports in the current scenario. This research work primarily focuses on assessing the critical risk factors that trigger road accidents in India. Based on literature review and expert’s opinion, twenty-eight risk factors are identified and rated on a scale from 1 – 6. These critical factors are prepared as a questionnaire and the required input data is collected from a diversified set of automotive users. Further, the data is carefully processed and analyzed for identification of severe risk factors and its allied route cause based on the survey pattern. Three different cut-off patterns (Low risk, high risk & medium risk zone) are included to make the study more interesting, and the 28 factors are clustered with the aid of the collective results. Also, the dominant risk factors that has higher probability in triggering road accidents are identified for possible rectification.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.500
Threshold uncertainty score0.276

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Safety and Security EngineeringSame topicTraffic and Road SafetyFrench-language works237,207