Do Expressway Interchanges Increase Crash Injury Severities? Insights Using Temporal Instability and Unobserved Heterogeneity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Expressway crashes in interchange areas are a critical concern in China, posing significant economic and social challenges. Utilizing three years of crash data from the Beijing–Shanghai Expressway, this study investigates the transferability and heterogeneity of crash characteristics between interchange and noninterchange areas, as well as the temporal shifts in factors influencing injury severity levels. The research employs four series of random parameters logit models to estimate three potential crash injury severity outcomes of severe injury, minor injury, and no injury (based on the most severely injured individual in each crash) and to identify key determinants, encompassing driver, vehicle, roadway, environmental, temporal, traffic, and crash attributes. Likelihood ratio tests and out-of-sample predictions are utilized to assess the temporal stability and transferability of crash area characteristics. Additionally, the marginal effects of various determinants are calculated to understand their influence across different year periods and crash types. Key variables such as overspeed, single-vehicle, AADT (annual average daily traffic volume), Ls min , and other crash type indicators are identified as significant random parameters, demonstrating heterogeneity in means and variances. Notable distinctions are observed between interchange and noninterchange crashes, indicating nontransferability, with most significant indicators revealing temporal instabilities. Furthermore, factors such as multivehicle involvement, buses, and nighttime conditions are identified as risk indicators, notably increasing the likelihood of severe injuries. These insights are invaluable for expressway designers and decision-makers, aiding in understanding the contributing mechanisms of various elements. This study suggests that stricter enforcement measures are crucial to prevent random lane changes, particularly at interchange entrances and exits. Additionally, effective management strategies and enforcement countermeasures should be implemented to mitigate crash injury outcomes in both interchange and noninterchange areas.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".