SECOND TRAIN WARNING AT GRADE CROSSINGS: THE CANADIAN EXPERIENCE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Direction 2006 is a project of the Railway Association of Canada and Transport Canada. It is designed to create an awareness to the general public of the potential hazard of rail/highway crossings, and of trespassing on railway property. The goal is to reduce the number of collisions and the fatalities, personal injuries and material damages, which are a consequence of collisions. The intent of a Second Train Warning system is to provide additional information to the pedestrian to reduce the risk of a collision resulting from the pedestrian assuming that they can safely cross subsequent to the departure of the first train at a level crossing. Between 1989 and 1999 inclusive, fifteen second train collisions involving pedestrians occurred in Canada. The provision of active STW systems in North America is a relatively new application and as such, study and use of these systems is still being assessed and under development. In December 2000, Transport Canada retained IBI Group to undertake a study of STW systems, which comprises three phases: (1) Pilot Test Development - A review of existing second train warning installations and their effectiveness, development of location criteria, selection of the study site, and the development of a functional specification and cost-benefit model; (2) Pilot Test Evaluation - Procurement, installation, demonstration, and evaluation of a second train warning system at a grade crossing with an identified risk of second train incidents. The evaluation includes before and after data collection activities, undertaken with video monitoring equipment, and an assessment of the results; and (3) Deployment Recommendations - Formulation of conclusions and recommendations relating to the deployment of second train warning systems in Canada. It is anticipated that the study documentation will be published by Transport Canada in the later part of 2004. This paper describes the method used to identify candidate sites, the measured effectiveness of the STW system at a pilot test site in Quebec, Canada and future directions of the project.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".