Advances in Regression Kriging-Based Methods for Estimating Statewide Winter Weather Collisions: An Empirical Investigation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Winter conditions create hazardous roads that municipalities work hard to maintain to ensure the safety of the travelling public. Targeting their efforts with effective network screening will help transportation managers address these problems. In our recent efforts, regression kriging was found to be a viable and effective network screening methodology. However, the study was constrained by its limited spatial extent making the reported results less conclusive and transferrable. In addition, our previous work implemented what has long been adopted in most of conventional studies—the Euclidean distance; however, use of the road network distance would, intuitively, result in further improving kriging estimates, especially when dealing with transportation problems. Therefore, this study improves upon our previous efforts by developing a more advanced kriging model; namely, network regression kriging using the entire state of Iowa with the significantly expanded road network. The transferability of the developed models is also explored to investigate its generalization potential. The findings based on various statistical measures suggest that the enhanced kriging model vastly improved the estimation performance at the cost of greater computational complexity and run times. The study also suggests that regional semivariograms better represent the true nature of the local variances, though an overall model may still function adequately if higher fidelity is not required.
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 | 0.009 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".