MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402999127 · doi:10.1177/03611981241277753

Estimating the Expected Change in Safety for a Potential Application of Three Intelligent Transportation System Treatments

2024· article· en· W4402999127 on OpenAlexaff
Bhagwant Persaud, Raghavan Srinivasan, Vikash V. Gayah, Kristin Kersavage, Taha Saleem, Shauna Hallmark, Cameron Mohammadi

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Safety Analysis
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersFederal Highway AdministrationPennsylvania Department of TransportationU.S. Department of Transportation
KeywordsTransport engineeringIntelligent transportation systemComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper documents and illustrates a practice-ready procedure for estimating changes in crash frequency for specific application circumstances for three intelligent transportation system treatments—Closed Circuit Television Cameras (CCTV), Dynamic Message Signs (DMS), and Road Weather Information Systems (RWIS). The procedure will allow an agency to directly evaluate the change in safety that may be associated with a contemplated treatment. In effect, the approach mimics the application of a Crash Modification Function (CMFunction) in that each potential application will, in principle, have its own Crash Modification Factor (CMF). The procedure uses an empirical Bayes framework with safety performance functions (SPFs) for treatment and non-treatment reference sites. The paper also presents those SPFs, which were developed from Pennsylvania freeway data. In principle, this cross-sectional approach can be applied, as it has been, for other safety treatments where safety effects vary with application circumstance and where that variability cannot be captured with conventional before–after studies.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.535
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.216
GPT teacher head0.469
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research BoardSame topicRisk and Safety AnalysisFrench-language works237,207