Évaluation des facteurs de risque d'accident d'enfants piétons aux intersections avec brigadiers scolaires adultes à Montréal.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pour assurer la sécurité des enfants piétons d’âge primaire, un usager plus vulnérable que les autres, on fait appel, entre autres, aux brigadiers scolaires adultes. Le Service de police de la Ville de Montréal (SPVM) en est responsable pour toute l’île de Montréal. Depuis 1999, le SPVM doit composer avec un budget limité, restreignant ainsi le nombre de brigadier scolaire en service sur son territoire, et cela, malgré de nouveaux besoins. Qui plus est, la méthode utilisée pour évaluer une intersection avec brigadier scolaire pourrait être bonifiée en considérant la littérature existante sur les facteurs de risque. Cette recherche s’attarde à l’évaluation des intersections avec brigadier scolaire. Ainsi, en se basant sur la littérature, nous avons fait ressortir les éléments à analyser. Trois grilles ont donc été nécessaires pour l’évaluation des intersections. Elles nous permettent de catégoriser les intersections en fonction des variables environnementales présentes. Les intersections sont donc divisées en sous-groupes d’intersection considérés à faible, moyen ou fort risque en raison de l’accumulation des facteurs de risque de l’environnement physique liés aux enfants piétons. Des 100 intersections étudiées, les résultats révèlent plusieurs intersections dont la présence du brigadier scolaire ne semble pas aussi nécessaire que d’autres. Suite à cela, nous présentons des alternatives pour retirer la présence de brigadiers scolaires adultes dont le besoin est moins grand afin de permettre de relocaliser le brigadier scolaire à des intersections plus dangereuses. The safety of elementary aged child pedestrians is an important issue. Being more vulnerable than other age groups, the presence of adult school crossing guards is an essential element in the pursuit of the well-being of children. The organisation of this program is under the direction of the SPVM (Service de police de la Ville de Montréal). Since 1999, the SPVM has a limited budget to run the program. The number of adult school crossing guards hasn’t gone up even though the needs are growing. Furthermore, the method used to evaluate an intersection with an adult school crossing guard could be improved when considering the risk factors outlined in different references. This study will evaluate the intersections where crossing guards are posted. Based on extensive research, certain elements have been selected for the analysis of crossroads. Three grids have been developed to properly evaluate an intersection. It is possible to categorize them depending on the general layout of the crossroad. The intersections are grouped depending on the risk factor: small, medium or high risk. This categorization depends on the accumulation of risk factors linked to the physical environment of the crossroad from a child pedestrian point of view. When observing the results obtained on the sample of 100 intersections, some adult school crossing guard stations do not seem as essential as others. In the light of these findings, we suggest alternatives to an adult school crossing guard in the intersections that are considered « safe » so that they can be redeployed to crossroads presenting a higher risk for child pedestrians.
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 | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
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".