MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W578162817

Analysis of Injury Severity of Drivers Involved in Single-Vehicle and Two-Vehicle Crashes on Ontario Highways Using Heteroscedastic Ordered Logit Models

2014· article· en· W578162817 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Chris Lee, Xuancheng Li

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Research Board 93rd Annual MeetingTransportation Research Board · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic and Road Safety
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeteroscedasticityCrashTruckLogistic regressionLogitEconometricsMixed logitPoison controlMotor vehicle crashStatisticsInjury preventionTransport engineeringComputer scienceEngineeringMathematicsEnvironmental healthMedicineAutomotive engineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this study is to analyze driver’s injury severity in single-vehicle and two-vehicle crashes and compare the effects of explanatory variables between various types of crashes. The study identified factors affecting injury severity and their effects on severity levels using 5-year crash records for provincial highways in Ontario, Canada. Considering non-uniform variations in unobserved effects of explanatory variables on injury severity among observations called “heteroscedasticity”, heteroscedastic ordered logit (HOL) models were developed for single- vehicle and two-vehicle crashes separately. The results show that there exists heteroscedasticity for some variables in both single-vehicle and two-vehicle crash models. The results also show that some factors have opposite effects between single-vehicle and two-vehicle crashes, and between car-car crashes and truck-truck crashes. The study demonstrates that HOL models using separate crash data sets classified by vehicle type can better capture the associations of variables with driver’s injury severity.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.415
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.259 · 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.

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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransportation Research Board 93rd Annual MeetingTransportation Research BoardSame topicTraffic and Road SafetyFrench-language works237,207