MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W651670351

Effects of Winter Weather and Maintenance Treatments on Highway Safety

2006· article· en· W651670351 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Liping Fu, Max S Perchanok

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Research Board 85th Annual MeetingTransportation Research Board · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSmart Materials for Construction
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceHighway maintenanceTransport engineeringSnowCrashEngineeringMeteorologyComputer scienceGeography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research has conducted an analysis of the effects of winter weather and maintenance treatments on the safety of highways as related to factors such as weather, road, and treatment characteristics. The ability to assess and quantify these effects is essential for a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis of alternative maintenance strategies and methods and effective communication of the impacts of these strategies and methods to the decision-makers and the public. Two highway routes from Ontario, Canada were selected and data on daily accident occurrences, weather conditions and winter maintenances operations were obtained for this analysis. A statistical analysis was performed on the integrated dataset with the goal of identifying those weather and maintenance factors that had a significant impact on crash frequency. The modeling results indicate that weather conditions such as temperature and precipitation (mainly snow fall) had a significant effect on the crash risk. Anti-icing and pre-wetting operations were found to have improved road safety at one of the study sites. Sanding operations were found to have a positive effect on the safety at both maintenance routes. The research however could not statistically confirm the safety effect of conventional maintenance operations- plowing and salting with dry salt.

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)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.074
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.280 · 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

Citations24
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransportation Research Board 85th Annual MeetingTransportation Research BoardSame topicSmart Materials for ConstructionFrench-language works237,207