Investigating Pedestrian Crossing Patterns at Crossing Locations Based on Trajectory Data Collected by UAV
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous studies on pedestrian crossing have mostly focused on pedestrian crossing decisions; while as an important behavioral aspect, the pedestrian crossing process, i.e., their motions during the entire crossing process, has been narrowly studied. Understanding how pedestrian moves across the street during their entire crossing process helps identify risky movements and reasons for such movements, which can further help in the implementation of effective countermeasures. Therefore, this paper proposed a new and easily applied approach for investigating and understanding the pattern of the pedestrian crossing process at crosswalks based on vision‐based trajectory tracking technology and UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle) data. This study uses UAV for collecting video data which is timesaving and has a sufficient coverage area, compared to other methods. For trajectory extraction, the vision‐based Deep‐SORT‐Yolov5 architecture is applied. An improved DBSCAN (density‐based spatial clustering of applications with noise) algorithm is introduced for clustering and identification of patterns of pedestrian crossing processes based on their trajectories. This approach is tested via a case study involving six marked crosswalks in Shanghai, China. By using the proposed method, different crossing patterns are extracted and compared. The results show reasonable outputs of trajectory patterns, which reasonably explain the potential instincts of the pedestrians and affecting factors on the behavior of the pedestrian crossing process. Suggestions are made based on the results. This paper contributes to a more comprehensive safety analysis of pedestrian crossings by considering the pedestrian crossing process. The model, along with the UAV‐based trajectory observation method, provides an easily‐applied and low‐cost way of traffic data collection for the purpose of pedestrian safety evaluation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".