Predicting Road Accidents Using Machine Learning Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Road travel accounts for most traffic accidents that have caused injuries, death, and property damage world-wide. Improvements in road traffic safety education, recent advancements in-vehicle technology, and other environmental factors have decreased the number of road traffic accidents in developed nations. Many provincial and local governments envision the possibility of zero fatalities from road traffic accidents in the near future. Developing a proper accident prediction model to support such a vision is crucial. This study explores determinants of road collisions, emphasizing harsh winter weather. It then compares classical and Machine Learning models for collision prediction. Furthermore, it introduces the most influential factors in crashes concerning severe winter weather. All study parts are performed on the collisions data in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, between 2017 to 2020. It is shown that all the weather attributes are correlated to collisions. It shows the importance of considering weather attributes in accident analysis and prediction. Based on the nature of the collision dataset, which is tabular and heterogeneous, Neural Networks showed higher performances than the other investigated models, with 92% accuracy. The developed models would allow transportation planners to apply these models for evidence-based policy implementation, including new speed limit recommendations.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".