A Clustering Approach to Identify High-Risk Taxi Drivers Based on Self-Reported Driving Behavior
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate the driving behavior of taxi drivers in Isfahan, Iran, and assess the probability of a driver being among the high-risk taxi drivers. To identify risky driving behaviors among taxi drivers, the Driver Behavior Questionnaire (DBQ) was used. By collecting data from 548 taxi drivers, exploratory factor analysis identified the significant components of DBQ including “Inattention errors,” “Inexperience errors,” “Lapses,” “Ordinary violations,” and “Aggressive violations.” K-means clustering was conducted to cluster taxi drivers into three risk groups of low-risk, medium-risk, and high-risk taxi drivers based on their self-reported annual traffic crashes and fines. In addition, logistic regressions identified the extent to which drivers’ crashes and traffic fines are related to their driving behavior, and therefore, what aberrant driving behaviors are more important in explaining the presence of taxi drivers in the high-risk cluster. The results revealed that the majority of participants (66.78%) were low-risk taxi drivers. Aggressive violations and ordinary violations were significant predictors of taxi drivers being in the high-risk group, while inattention errors and aggressive violations were significant predictors of being in the medium/high-risk cluster. The findings from this study are valuable resources for developing safety measures and training for new drivers in the taxi industry.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".