Bibliographic record
Abstract
Proactive and holistic safety management approaches should consider multi-modal crash risk. Cyclist crash risk should be prioritized given the high-severity of vehicle-cyclist crashes. Cyclist crash risk is difficult to quantify given the sparse nature of cyclist collisions and collisions in general. There is thus a need to develop a more proactive approach for multi-modal road-safety management by leveraging new technologies. This study proposes a conflict-based methodology to estimate cyclist crash risk using autonomous vehicle data, extrapolating from observed conflicts to real-time dynamic crash risk. Using 87 hours of data from an autonomous vehicle dataset from downtown Boston (nuPlan), traffic conflicts were identified. A Bayesian Hierarchical Extreme Value model was created representing driver and cyclist crash risk over short time intervals. This allows for identifying the real-time crash risk of various intersections and mid-blocks, enabling route-level safety metrics. The spatiotemporal characteristics of crash risk were examined in this study. Routes with cyclist facilities were found to be safer for cyclists, on average, than those with shared facilities. However, substantial fluctuations in crash risk were observed at different time intervals, with the shared facilities sometimes being safer than those with painted or buffered bicycle lanes. This highlights the need for real-time safety monitoring. At the user-level, a safest route application was also proposed, allowing for an impedance function to be developed based on real-time crash risk and the comparison of any number of nodes and links along a particular route.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".