Spatial and Temporal Distribution Analysis of Traffic Accidents Using GIS-Based Data in Harbin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Road traffic safety is a social issue of widespread concern. It is important for traffic managers to understand the distribution patterns of road traffic accidents. To this end, this study examines the spatial and temporal patterns of road traffic accidents from both accident frequency and accident severity perspectives. Road traffic accident data from 2016 to 2018 in Harbin, China, were used for the analysis. First, the spatial localization of accidents was completed using geocoding, and the localized accident data were classified by season. Then, density analysis was performed both with and without considering road network density. The results of the density analysis showed that when road network density was considered, accidents were mainly distributed in urban centers, while accidents were more dispersed when road network density was not considered. Third, a cluster analysis considering accident severity found that low-severity accident clusters occurred mostly in urban centers. High-severity accident clusters were mostly present in suburban areas. Finally, the results of these two methods are shown by using the comap technique. Areas of the city with a high frequency and severity of crashes in each season were identified. This study will help traffic management to have a more visual and intuitive understanding of the urban traffic safety situation and to take targeted measures to improve it accordingly.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".