MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4255209086 · doi:10.3390/su11174737

A Surrogate Video-Based Safety Methodology for Diagnosis and Evaluation of Low-Cost Pedestrian-Safety Countermeasures: The Case of Cochabamba, Bolivia

2019· article· en· W4255209086 on OpenAlexaff
Lynn Scholl, Mohamed Elagaty, Bismarck Ledezma-Navarro, Edgar Zamora, Luis Miranda-Moreno

Bibliographic record

VenueSustainability · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic and Road Safety
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPedestrianCrashContext (archaeology)Transport engineeringAnalyticsData collectionComputer sciencePedestrian crossingRisk analysis (engineering)EngineeringData scienceBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Due to a lack of reliable data collection systems, traffic fatalities and injuries are often under-reported in developing countries. Recent developments in surrogate road safety methods and video analytics tools offer an alternative approach that can be both lower cost and more time efficient when crash data is incomplete or missing. However, very few studies investigating pedestrian road safety in developing countries using these approaches exist. This research uses an automated video analytics tool to develop and analyze surrogate traffic safety measures and to evaluate the effectiveness of temporary low-cost countermeasures at selected pedestrian crossings at risky intersections in the city of Cochabamba, Bolivia. Specialized computer vision software is used to process hundreds of hours of video data and generate data on road users’ speed and trajectories. We find that motorcycles, turning movements, and roundabouts, are among the key factors related to pedestrian crash risk, and that the implemented treatments were effective at four-legged intersections but not at traditional-design roundabouts. This study demonstrates the applicability of the surrogate methodology based on automated video analytics in the Latin American context, where traditional methods are challenging to implement. The methodology could serve as a tool to rapidly evaluate temporary treatments before they are permanently implemented and replicated.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score0.158

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations21
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSustainabilitySame topicTraffic and Road SafetyFrench-language works237,207