Receptiveness angle: A new surrogate safety measure for monitoring traffic safety
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a framework for monitoring highway traffic-stream measures using quality trajectory data of mixed (heterogeneous) traffic. The framework includes a new measure that reflects the attentiveness of the follower driver, called receptiveness angle, in the vehicle-following process. This measure is integrated with the traditional measures (distance gap between the leader and follower vehicles and their speeds) to model the probabilistic rear-end collision interactions between the two vehicles. To verify the proposed framework, two road sections in India with mixed traffic conditions, located along the same road, were used. One section has no construction activity (base section) and the other has construction activity. The verification consisted of two tasks. First, to trace the movements of the vehicles, trajectory data over the study sections were developed for three traffic-flow levels, where two flow levels between the two sections were comparable. Second, the trajectory data were used to verify the proposed framework which was evaluated for the traffic streams of the two sections at the three traffic-flow levels. The results showed that smaller vehicles in the traffic stream exhibited a higher receptiveness angle (paid less attention) compared to other vehicle classes. Interestingly, the study revealed variations in safety among the three traffic-flow levels. It was observed that the traffic stream was safer at stop-and-go conditions than at other flow conditions. Furthermore, due to the pre-cautioning measures for the construction section, vehicles in this section were more attentive than those in the base section.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".