MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412707877 · doi:10.1136/ip-2024-045561

Automated speed enforcement reduced vehicle speeds in school zones in Toronto: a prospective quasi-experimental study

2025· article· en· W4412707877 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Andrew Howard, Brice Batomen, Saroar Zubair, Marie‐Soleil Cloutier, Alison Macpherson, Linda Rothman

Bibliographic record

VenueInjury Prevention · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic and Road Safety
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche ScientifiqueYork UniversityHospital for Sick ChildrenPublic Health OntarioToronto Metropolitan UniversitySickKids FoundationUniversity of TorontoInstitute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences
FundersCity of TorontoCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsPoison controlHuman factors and ergonomicsTransport engineeringOccupational safety and healthEnforcementInjury preventionSuicide preventionForensic engineeringEngineeringTraffic speedAutomotive engineeringEnvironmental scienceMedical emergencyMedicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Vulnerable road user collisions are a leading cause of injury and death. Speed is the direct mechanism for pedestrian injury risk. We evaluate the effectiveness of automated speed enforcement (ASE) at reducing vehicle speeds in school zones. METHODS: Quasi-experimental trial with speeds measured before, during and after ASE implementation. 50 ASE cameras were used at 250 intervention sites in school zones between July 2020 and December 2022. Outcomes were the proportion of vehicles speeding and the 85th percentile vehicle speed. RESULTS: Proportion of vehicles speeding dropped by 45% (RR: 0.55, 95% CI: 0.49, 0.61) and 85th percentile speed dropped by 10.68 km/hour (95% CI: -11.48, -9.88). Reductions in speed were more pronounced at higher speeding thresholds. CONCLUSIONS: A significant reduction in speeding was observed when ASE was implemented in urban school zones.

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)0.000
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.378
Threshold uncertainty score0.731

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.297 · 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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInjury PreventionSame topicTraffic and Road SafetyFrench-language works237,207