Modelling the Relationships between Train Commuters’ Access Modes and Traffic Safety
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Walking, cycling, and feeder bus/tram for first- and last-mile (FLM) train access are often considered to have better health benefits, lower cost, and less environmental impacts than driving. However, little is known about the road safety impacts of these FLM access modes, particularly at a network level. This paper aims to investigate the impacts of train commuters’ access modes on road safety in Victoria, Australia. Macroscopic analyses of crash outcomes in each zone (i.e., Statistical Area Level 1) were performed using negative binomial (NB) and spatially lagged X negative binomial (SLXNB), accounting for potential indirect effects of mode shares in adjacent zones. This macroscopic analysis approach enabled the consideration of the safety effects across the network. The results showed that the SLXNB models outperformed the NB models. Commuting by train, either with walking or car as FLM access mode, was negatively associated with both total and severe crashes. In addition, commuting by train with feeder bus/tram access mode was negatively associated with severe crashes. Interestingly, commuting by train with cycling access mode was negatively associated with total crashes, with a larger effect when compared to walking and car access modes. Overall, the results suggested promoting active transport as FLM train access mode would lead to an improvement in road safety.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".