MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391176798 · doi:10.4236/jtts.2024.141006

A Workable Solution for Reducing the Large Number of Vehicle and Pedestrian Accidents Occurring on a Yellow Light

2024· article· en· W4391176798 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Pranav Gupta

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Transportation Technologies · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic and Road Safety
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPedestrianTransport engineeringEngineeringEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Traffic intersections are incredibly dangerous for drivers and pedestrians. Statistics from both Canada and the U.S. show a high number of fatalities and serious injuries related to crashes at intersections. In Canada, during 2019, the National Collision Database shows that 28% of traffic fatalities and 42% of serious injuries occurred at intersections. Likewise, the U.S. National Highway Traffic Administration (NHTSA) found that about 40% of the estimated 5,811,000 accidents in the U.S. during the year studied were intersection-related crashes. In fact, a major survey by the car insurance industry found that nearly 85% of drivers could not identify the correct action to take when approaching a yellow traffic light at an intersection. One major reason for these accidents is the “yellow light dilemma,” the ambiguous situation where a driver should stop or proceed forward when unexpectedly faced with a yellow light. This situation is even further exacerbated by the tendency of aggressive drivers to inappropriately speed up on the yellow just to get through the traffic light. A survey of Canadian drivers conducted by the Traffic Injury Research Foundation found that 9% of drivers admitted to speeding up to get through a traffic light. Another reason for these accidents is the increased danger of making a left-hand turn on yellow. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Association (NHTSA), left turns occur in approximately 22.2% of collisions—as opposed to just 1.2% for right turns. Moreover, a study by CNN found left turns are three times as likely to kill pedestrians than right turns. The reason left turns are so much more likely to cause an accident is because they take a driver against traffic and in the path of oncoming cars. Additionally, most of these left turns occur at the driver’s discretion—as opposed to the distressingly brief left-hand arrow at busy intersections. Drive Safe Now proposes a workable solution for reducing the number of accidents occurring during a yellow light at intersections. We believe this fairly simple solution will save lives, prevent injuries, reduce damage to public and private property, and decrease insurance costs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.124

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0040.006
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0370.018

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.239 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Transportation TechnologiesSame topicTraffic and Road SafetyFrench-language works237,207