MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Negative Binomial Regression Model for Road Accident Analysis in Hong Kong

2010· article· en· W34358905 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Xin Pei, S.C. Wong, N.N. Sze

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Research Board 89th Annual MeetingTransportation Research Board · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic and Road Safety
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsNegative binomial distributionStatisticsAccident (philosophy)Regression analysisTransport engineeringTraffic volumeGeographyComputer scienceEngineeringMathematicsPoisson distribution

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study evaluates the influence of traffic volume on accident frequency and investigates other possible factors that contribute to accident risk, using vehicle kilometers (VKM) as a proxy of exposure. Information on traffic volume and road design factors was obtained from the Hong Kong Annual Traffic Census (ATC), and accident data were extracted from the Hong Kong Accident Database System (TRADS) respectively. These data were incorporated into a road network map of Hong Kong using the Geographical Information System (GIS). Count data models were employed to the analysis of accident frequency. As the data are subject to over-dispersion, a negative binomial regression method was deployed to measure the association between accident frequency and traffic volume and to control for the effects of factors such as temporal variation and road environment. The results indicate that greater traffic volume leads to a less than proportionate increase (a coefficient estimate of 0.62) in accident frequency and thus a decrease of accident risk. The interaction effects by traffic volume and other possible factors on accident occurrence are also revealed.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.086
Threshold uncertainty score0.171

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0400.006

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.320 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransportation Research Board 89th Annual MeetingTransportation Research BoardSame topicTraffic and Road SafetyFrench-language works237,207