The impact of bike network indicators on bike kilometers traveled and bike safety: A network theory approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There has been recent interest in the use of network analysis to quantify bike network features and their impact on biking levels and safety. However, limited bike network indicators have been evaluated. This study introduces a list of network indicators to quantify the bike network and study its effect on bike kilometers traveled and bike–vehicle crashes. Data from the city of Vancouver, Canada, are used as a case study. Full Bayesian modeling incorporating spatial effects is employed to develop Bike Kilometers Travelled (BKT) and bike–vehicle crash models. The developed BKT models show that the bike network centrality, assortativity, and weighted slope have negative associations with BKT, while the bike network directness, length, complexity and development, and connectivity have positive associations with BKT. The developed crash models show that the bike network length, centrality, assortativity, and continuity have negative associations with bike–vehicle crashes. On the other hand, the bike network complexity and development, connectivity, and linearity have positive associations with bike–vehicle crashes. The models provide insights that can be useful for planning bike networks to increase bike traffic and improve bike safety. The models also show that some changes to a bike network to increase bike traffic should be accompanied by crash risk-mitigating measures. As well, the models can be used to identify zones within a city that require safety improvements.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 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 teacher head, 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".