Machine Learning Approach to Enhance Highway Railroad Grade Crossing Safety by Analyzing Crash Data and Identifying Hotspot Crash Locations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Safe railway operation is vital for public safety, the environment, and property. Concurrent with climbing amounts of rail traffic on the Canadian rail network are increases in the last decade in the annual crash counts for derailment, collision, and highway railroad grade crossings (HRGCs). HRGCs are important spatial areas of the rail network, and the development of community areas near railway tracks increases the risk of HRGC crashes between highway vehicles and moving trains, resulting in consequences varying from property damage to injuries and fatalities. This research aims to identify major factors that cause HRGC crashes and affect the severity of associated casualties. Using these causal factors and ensemble algorithms, machine learning models were developed to analyze HRGC crashes and the severity of associated casualties between 2001 and 2022 in Canada. Furthermore, spatial autocorrelation and optimized hotspot analysis tools from ArcGIS software were used to identify hotspot locations of HRGC crashes. The optimized hotspot analysis shows the clustering of HRGC crashes around major Canadian cities. The analysis of cluster characteristics supports the results obtained for causal factors of HRGC crashes. These research outcomes help one to better understand the major causal factors and hotspot locations of HRGC crashes and assist authorities in implementing countermeasures to improve the safety of HRGCs across the rail network.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".