MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4256195381 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14662527.v1

Improving safety and traffic operations in urban zones with a high propensity for rear-end collisions at signalized intersections

2021· preprint· en· W4256195381 on OpenAlexaffabout
Abdul W. Basit

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic control and management
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCollisionSynchroComputer scienceSIGNAL (programming language)Transport engineeringTraffic signalTraffic simulationIntersection (aeronautics)SimulationAutomotive engineeringEngineeringReal-time computingComputer securityElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

At signalized intersections, rear-end accidents are frequently the predominant accident type. These accidents result from the combination of a lead-vehicle's decelereation and the ineffective response of the following vehicle's driver to this deceleration. The frequency and severity of rear end collisions can be reduced through traffic control and operational improvements. There are different traffic operation strategies for rear-end collision reduction like "Employ multiphase signal operation". "optimize clearance intervals" or "Restrict or eliminate turning maneuvers (including right turns on red)". In practice, the most cost-effective strategy appears to be "Employ Signal Coordination". The first objective of this research report was to use spatial analysis tools to disaggregate Toronto into 76 spatial zones (Toronto is usually divided into 158 zones). The second objective was to rank the 76 zones according to their propensity for rear-end collisions at 4-legged signalized intersections. The third objective was to demonstrate how safety can be improved through signal coordination and progression. The software package Synchro-4.00 was used to recommend improved signal coordination through optimization of cycle lenghts, splits and offsets. The coordination analysis for the 15 intersectins located in the zone with the highest propensity for rear-end collision revealed the following results. 1. Coordination was definitely not recommended for three of the intersections. 2. Coordination was probably not recommended for six of the intersections; and 3. Coordination was definitely recommended for six of the intersections. The coordinatability analysis for the 15 intersections located in the zone with the highest propensity for rear-end collisions was performed on the basis of current cycle length (based on field observations). At the nine intersection where coordination is either definitely not recommended or probably not recommended, current cycle length needs to be optimized.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.090
Threshold uncertainty score0.178

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.187 · 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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTraffic control and managementFrench-language works237,207