GIS-Based Spatial Analysis of Accident Hotspots: A Nigerian Case Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study identified high-risk locations (hotspots), using geographic information systems (GIS) and spatial analysis. Five years of accident data (2013-2017) for the Lokoja-Abuja-Kaduna highway in Nigeria were used. Accident concentration analysis was carried out using the mean center analysis and Kernel density estimation method. These locations were further verified using Moran’s I Statistics (Spatial Autocorrelation) to determine their clustering with statistical significance. Fishnet polygon and Network spatial weight matrix approaches of Getis-Ord Gi* statistic for hotspot analysis were used for the hotspot analysis. Hotspots exist for 2013, 2014, and 2017 with a significance level between 95% - 99%. However, no hotspots exist for 2014 and 2015 since the pattern is random. The spatial autocorrelation analysis of the overall accident locations with a z-score = 0.0575, p-value = 0.9542, and Moran's I statistic = -0.0089 showed that the distribution of accidents on the study route is random. Thus, preventive measures for hotspot locations should be based on a yearly hotspot analysis. The average daily traffic values of 31,270 and 16,303 were obtained for the Northbound and Southbound directions of the Abaji-Abuja section. The results show that hotspot locations with high confidence levels are at points where there are geometric features.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 teacher head, 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".