Time and Distance Gaps of Primary-Secondary Crashes Prediction and Analysis Using Random Forests and SHAP Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Secondary crashes (SCs) are typically defined as the crash that occurs within the spatiotemporal boundaries of the impact area of the primary crashes (PCs), which will intensify traffic congestion and induce a series of road safety issues. Predicting and analyzing the time and distance gaps between the SCs and PCs will help to prevent the occurrence of SCs. In this paper, a combined data‐driven method of static and dynamic approaches is applied to identify SCs. Then, the random forests (RF) method is implemented to predict the two gaps using temporal, primary crash, roadway, and real‐time traffic characteristics data collected from 2016 to 2019 at California interstate freeways. Subsequently, the SHapley Additive explanation (SHAP) approach is employed to interpret the RF outputs. The results show that the traffic volume, speed, lighting, and population are considered the most significant factors in both gaps. Furthermore, the main and interaction effects of factors are also quantified. High volume possibly promotes the time and distance gaps, while low volume inhibits them. And volume affects the distance gap inconsiderably when it falls between 300 and 400 veh/5 min. Traffic conditions with high speed and low volume are strongly associated with short‐time and short‐distance gaps. Darker surroundings probably accelerate the occurrence of SCs. Moreover, crashes involving the violation categories of improper turns or unsafe lane changes likely result in long time and distance gaps. These results have important implications for proposing traffic management and improving road safety.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 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".