Estimating Post-Encroachment Time for Pedestrian Safety Using Ultra-Wideband Sensor Technology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traffic safety analysis has traditionally relied on historical road collision data. However, this approach has many limitations due to well-known challenges with the availability and quality of collision data. Moreover, collecting sufficient crash data to develop statistical models for traffic safety analysis is only possible after the societal damage due to collisions has been sustained. Those problems are more likely when studying pedestrian safety. To address these constraints, researchers utilize traffic conflict indicators to identify the severity of conflicts and develop strategies to enhance road safety. This study evaluates Ultra-Wideband (UWB) technology for estimating the post-encroachment time (PET) indicator, a commonly used measure in pedestrian safety. Indoor experiments were conducted to explore potential multipath issues commonly encountered in wireless-based localization systems. The time-division multiple access (TDMA) scheme was utilized by assigning 20 ms time slots for stable communication between a tag and an anchor. To address the different clocks in UWB anchors and tags, the master–slave technique was employed for time synchronization between the devices. The experiments also examined the storage of UWB measurements using a cloud-based global clock for time synchronization. The study found that the mean absolute error (MAE) in PET is 4.92 s under interference conditions and 0.148 s with the TDMA technique between the ground truth and the UWB measurements. The findings offer valuable insights for future studies aimed at enhancing UWB accuracy.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".