Analysis and Prediction of the Interval Duration between the First and Second Accidents considering the Spatiotemporal Threshold
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studying the time interval duration between the first accident and the second accident caused by it can provide decision makers with valuable information on how to effectively deal with high-risk second accidents. This paper is aimed to explore the potential influencing factors of the interval duration between the two accidents and predict it. First, the spatiotemporal definition method is applied to identify the cascaded first accident and the second accident. Then, on the basis of using Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure and Bartlett’s sphere test statistics to ensure the applicability of the data to the factor analysis method, the explanatory variables that can significantly affect the interval duration are obtained through the factor analysis method. Finally, the random forest model (RF), which combines the advantages of machine learning methods, is employed to predict the duration of the interval. Traffic accident data set collected in Los Angeles city from February 2016 to June 2020 is used to validate prediction performance in this study. Bayesian method is applied to optimize the hyperparameters in the RF, while three evaluation indicators, including the Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE), Mean Squared Error (MSE), and Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE), are used to estimate the prediction effect. The test results and comparative experiments confirm that RF is able to predict the interval well and has better prediction performance. This is of great significance for the prediction of the duration of the interval between one accident and the second accident.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".