MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413040426 · doi:10.1177/03611981251349440

Safety Effectiveness of High Friction Surface Treatment at Signalized Intersections in British Columbia

2025· article· en· W4413040426 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mohamed Essa, Joy Sengupta, Emmanuel Takyi

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTransportation Safety and Impact Analysis
Canadian institutionsMinistry of HealthMinistry of Transportation of Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForensic engineeringTransport engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

High friction surface treatment (HFST) is a pavement and safety treatment that dramatically and immediately increases pavement friction to reduce crashes, injuries, and fatalities associated with friction demand issues. Understanding the effectiveness of HFST as a safety measure is crucial for estimating the expected crash reduction and evaluating the cost-effectiveness of future HFST implementations. Existing research on HFST safety effectiveness evaluation is limited to horizontal curves and ramps, despite the promising safety benefits of installing HFST at other locations, such as signalized intersections. To help fill this research gap, this paper presents a rigorous before-and-after safety effectiveness evaluation of HFST installation at signalized intersections using traffic and crash data obtained from 15 treatment sites and 90 control sites in British Columbia, Canada. To enhance the validity of the safety assessment, two before-and-after evaluation methods were applied: empirical Bayes and full Bayes. The results indicated statistically significant safety benefits of HFST at the treated sites. Specifically, the estimated reductions in serious (fatal and injury) crashes, serious rear-end crashes, and serious wet-pavement crashes, are about 51%, 57%, and 64%, respectively. It is worth noting that an unexpected decline in crashes was observed at the control sites, which introduces some uncertainty in interpreting the results and warrants careful consideration.

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)0.003
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 score0.619
Threshold uncertainty score0.928

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.296 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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