Comparison of Statistical and Machine Learning Methods for Analysing Traffic Accident Fatalities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Logistic Regression and Random Forest are used to identify risk factors that influence traffic accident fatalities in the United Kingdom. The mean decrease accuracy was used to measure variable importance. The speed limit, police attendance and quarter had an increasing influence on accident fatalities. They had a mean decrease of 102.1669, 221.5322, and 120.894 respectively. The speed limit, had a parameter estimate of 0.0046902 and a standard deviation of 0.0004875. Light Conditions: Night had a parameter estimate of 1.2657635 and a standard deviation of 0.0118409. Road Type Round About had a parameter estimate of -0.4055796 and a standard deviation of 0.0210848. Police Attendance classified as Yes had a parameter of 0.8546232 and a standard deviation of 0.0151043. The best predictors were speed limit, police attendance and quarter since they had p values that were less than 0.05. The findings of the study indicated that logistic Regression had a higher accuracy rate 79.85% as compared to 64.00% for Random Forest. A split test was used and a standard deviation of 0.0010486 was obtained for the Logistic Regression model.
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 | 0.018 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".