MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3202987421 · doi:10.1155/2021/3771640

Analyzing Accident Injury Severity via an Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) Model

2021· article· en· W3202987421 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Shubo Wu, Quan Yuan, Zhongwei Yan, Qing Xu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Transportation · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic and Road Safety
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Key Research and Development Program of ChinaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsCrashChinaPoison controlInjury preventionTransport engineeringBoosting (machine learning)Occupational safety and healthDescriptive statisticsHuman factors and ergonomicsGeographyStatistical analysisSuicide preventionEnvironmental healthComputer scienceStatisticsMedicineEngineeringMathematicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Vehicle to vulnerable road user (VRU) crashes occupy a large proportion of traffic crashes in China, and crash injury severity analysis can support traffic managers to understand the implicit rules behind the crashes. Therefore, 554 VRUs-involved crashes are collected from January, 2017, to February, 2021, in a city in northern China, including 322 vehicle-pedestrian crashes and 232 vehicle-bicycle crashes. First, a descriptive statistical analysis is conducted to investigate the characteristics of VRUs-involved crashes. Second, the extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost) model is introduced to identify the importance of risk factors (i.e., time of day, day of week, rushing hour, crash position, weather, and crash involvements) of VRUs-involved crashes. The statistical analysis demonstrates that the risk factors are closely related to VRUs-involved crash injury severity. Moreover, the results of XGBoost reveal that time of day has the greatest impact on VRUs-involved crashes, and crash position shows the minimum importance among these risk factors.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.705
Threshold uncertainty score0.576

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations40
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced TransportationSame topicTraffic and Road SafetyFrench-language works237,207