Risk Measurement Model for Vehicle Group Based on Temporal and Spatial Similarities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Vehicle rear-end collisions are primarily caused by tight car following in a continuous traffic flow, as well as a driver’s incorrect perception of the traffic environment ahead and delayed response. To facilitate an investigation pertaining to rear-end collision mechanisms and accurately measure the risk, the concept of a vehicle group is introduced herein. A risk measurement model for a vehicle group (RMVG) based on temporal and spatial similarities is proposed. First, vehicles are categorized based on their temporal and spatial similarities. Risk measurement metrics are defined based on the traffic composition, movement state, and conflict extent. Subsequently, vehicle group risk identification and risk measurement models based on an isolation forest are established. the rear-end collision risk of the vehicle groups is analyzed both qualitatively and quantitatively. Finally, the RMVG is tested using the vehicle trajectory data set of Longpan South Road, Nanjing City, Jiangsu Province, China, and the results are compared with those of a support vector machine and local outlier factor. The results show that the accuracy of the RMVG is higher than those of other models: its accuracy rate and specificity are 95.68% and 88.89%, respectively, whereas its false alarm rate is only 3.47%.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".