Investigating the application of deep learning to identify pedestrian collision-prone zones
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main objective of this study is to understand the factors that contribute to the frequency of both the total pedestrian-vehicle collisions and collisions that involve pedestrian violations and identify collision-prone areas. The two Full Bayes (FB) macro-level models were applied to historical collision records of the City of Hamilton to identify the collision-prone zones and the key factors that contribute to collision occurrence in TAZs. Finally, a self-organizing map (SOM) deep learning model was developed to identify collision-prone zones for the two collision classes. The results showed that the SOM model identified collision-prone zones with a high accuracy that exceeded the traditional Bayesian approach, based on the developed consistency test. As for the total collisions, the SOM model revealed that intersection density is the most important factor in distinguishing between collision-prone and non-collision-prone zones, followed by the pedestrian network directness and the proportion of residential land uses. As for the collisions that involved pedestrian violations, intersection density was also found to be the most important factor, followed by the density of bike-share stations and parking lots in a TAZ. The results of this study could aid planners in designing pedestrian-friendly networks and develop specific recommendations to enhance safety in unsafe zones.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".