Multisource Accident Datasets‐Driven Deep Learning‐Based Traffic Accident Portrait for Accident Reasoning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traffic accident data‐based portrait plays a vital role in accident cause investigation, relationship reasoning, prevention, and control. The traffic accident data tend to be multisourced with increasingly hidden and complicated accident relationships. The existing reported research focus more on traffic drivers’ measurement of penalty, the relationship among drivers, cars, and dates, etc. How to use multisource data based on deep learning, especially based on the Chinese recent unstructured data and structured data to establish accident portrait for individual and groups of accident drivers, still lacks. Moreover, how to perform multisource accident data label extraction, identity, and relationship extraction are still challenging problems. This paper proposes a multisource accident datasets‐driven deep learning‐based traffic accident portrait method. Our multisource accident datasets‐driven deep learning model is composed of the following three submodels: (1) the structured data accident model using our accident feature‐driven bidirectional long short‐term memory (Bi‐LSTM) and accident feature‐driven bidirectional conditional random field (Bi‐CRF) model to extract labels, (2) the unstructured traffic accident data model using our accident feature‐driven piecewise convolutional neural network (PCNN) model to identify the extracted labels, and (3) the semistructured traffic accident data processing model. Moreover, to solve the problem of how to construct hidden relationship among the multisource accident data, a multisource accident data visualization method based on traffic accident knowledge graph where the accident relational inference algorithm is to complete the hidden relationship between traffic accident data labels is used and then data are visualized using the traffic accident knowledge graph. This paper uses the NER dataset of the People’s Daily and a manually labeled dataset to test the Bi‐LSTM + Bi‐CRF model, and it acquires the highest scores of 0.9562 and 0.9779 compared with several other models. This paper uses the DuIE dataset and a manually labeled dataset to test the PCNN model, and it acquires the highest scores of 0.9674 and 0.9108 compared with several other models. Experiments verified our model’s merits than other models in regards to accident label extraction, accident identity identification, and accident relationship extraction.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
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".