MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W326405311 · doi:10.15760/etd.2197

Safety at Half-Signal Intersections in Portland, Oregon

2000· report· en· W326405311 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Todd Johnson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic and Road Safety
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntersection (aeronautics)Transport engineeringCrashPedestrianSignal timingGeographyEngineeringTraffic signalComputer scienceReal-time computing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The safety at half-signalized intersections in Portland, Oregon is analyzed in this thesis using 10 years of crash history and analysis of video that was collected at a subset of intersections. A half-signalized intersection has a standard red-yellow-green traffic signal for automobiles on the major road, a stop sign for motorists on the minor road, and a pedestrian signal with actuation for pedestrians and/or bicyclists on the minor road. Although prevalent in Canada, this type of intersection control is not typically found in the United States because the MUTCD explicitly prohibits its use. Half-signal use is limited mostly to two cities in the Pacific Northwest. In Portland, Oregon there are forty-seven intersections where half-signals are used but the last installation was in 1986; Seattle has over 100 intersections with half-signals and installs these in new locations where warranted. To explore the safety records of these intersections in Portland, crash data from 2002-2011 was analyzed. A total of 442 crashes over the ten-year period at half-signals were observed. Sixteen of these 442 crashes involved pedestrians. In the crashes involving pedestrians, significant differences were found between the approach street of the vehicle and whether the pedestrian or driver was at fault. In the crash error reports, it was found that significantly more of the crashes involving pedestrians were the fault of motorists departing from the minor road who collided with pedestrians crossing the major street. Further crash analysis at half-signals was performed by developing matched comparison groups of minor stop controlled and fully signalized intersections. Crash rates were 0.158 and 0.178 crashes per million entering vehicles for 3-leg and 4-leg half-signals and these rates did not differ significantly from the minor street stop controlled and signalized comparison groups. Results from the matched comparison showed that the half-signalized group had more rear-end crashes when compared with the minor stop controlled group. This was the only result that held significance when crash rates were considered. It was also observed that the minor stop controlled group had a higher proportion of angle crashes when compared with the half-signal group but this did not influence the crash severity. Pedestrian crashes were more prevalent in the half-signal group when compared with the fully-signalized group. Pedestrian volumes were not available which would be used to determine if this significant measure is a result of higher pedestrian use at half-signals. In addition to crash analysis, video was captured at

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.123
Threshold uncertainty score0.245

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.225
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations1
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTraffic and Road Safety→French-language works237,207→