MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4231724352 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14643855.v1

Exploration Of Theoretical And Application Issues In Using Fully Bayesian Methods For Road Safety Analysis

2021· preprint· en· W4231724352 on OpenAlex
Bo Lan

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversityUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnivariateMultivariate statisticsBayesian probabilityStatisticsPoisson regressionRanking (information retrieval)Poisson distributionMultivariate analysisUnivariate analysisMathematicsComputer scienceEconometricsMedicineArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Fully Bayesian (FB) approach to road safety analysis has been available for some time, but it is largely unevaluated and untested. This study is trying to bridge the gap by conducting a thorough evaluation of FB method for black spots identification and treatment effect analysis. First, an evaluation is conducted on the univariate FB versus the empirical Bayesian (EB) method for single level severity data through the development of various models, and multivariate FB versus univariate FB for multilevel severity data, as well as the performance of various ranking and evaluation criteria for black spots identification. It is confirmed that the FB method is superior to the EB with respect to key ranking criteria (expected rank, mode rank and median rank of posterior PM, etc.). The multivariate FB method is better than univariate FB for the multilevel severity crashes. Then a teat of the FB before-after method for treatment effect analysis is performed. Two FB testing frameworks were employed. First the univariate before-after fully Bayesian (FB) method was examined using three simulated datasets. Then multivariate Poisson log normal (MVPLN), univariate Poisson log normal (PLN) and PB (Poisson gamma) models were evaluated using two groups of California unsignalized intersections. Hypothetical treatment sites were selected from these datasets such that a significant effect would be estimated by the naive before-after method that does not account for regression to the mean. This study confirmed that FB methods can indeed provide valid results, in that they correctly estimate a treatment effect of zero at these hypothetical treatment sites after accounting for regression to the mean. Finally the EB and the validated FB before after methods were applied to evaluation of two treatments: the conversion of rural intersections from unsignalized to signalized control; and the conversion of road segments from a four-lane to a three-lane cross-section with two-way left turn lanes (also known as road diets). The result indicates that both FB and EB method can provide comparable treatment effect estimates. This would suggest it is still appropriate to conduct treatment effect analysis using the EB method for univariate crash data, but that it is essential in so doing to account for temporal trends in crash frequency.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.366
Threshold uncertainty score0.753

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.088
GPT teacher head0.478
Teacher spread0.390 · 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