MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6991304729

Full Bayesian Poisson-Hierarchical Models for Crash Data Analysis: Investigating the Impact of Model Choice on Site-Specific Predictions

2016· dissertation· en· W6991304729 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOakTrust (Texas A&M University Libraries) · 2016
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic and Road Safety
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBayesian probabilityStatistical modelField (mathematics)Interpretation (philosophy)Bayesian inferenceCrash
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Poisson-gamma (PG) and Poisson-lognormal (PLN) regression models are among the most popular means for motor-vehicle crash data analysis. Both models belong to the Poisson-hierarchical family of models, which provides a straightforward framework for interpretation of parameters. Over the last two decades, highway safety researchers have increasingly favored a full Bayesian approach to estimation of Poisson-hierarchical models due to its theoretical and computational advantages. While numerous studies have compared the overall performance of alternative Bayesian Poisson-hierarchical models, little research has addressed the impact of model choice on the expected crash frequency prediction at individual sites. This dissertation takes a microscopic approach to comparing the models’ predictions and strives to identify possible trends e.g., that an alternative model’s prediction for sites with certain conditions tends to be higher (or lower) than that from another model. The practical importance of such trends is reflected most clearly when alternative models are utilized to identify hazardous highway sites (e.g., roadway segments, intersection, etc.) by ranking the sites with respect to their expected crash frequency. \n\nIn addition to the PG and PLN models, this research formulates a new member of the Poisson-hierarchical family of models: the Poisson-inverse gamma (PIGam). The PIGam model was of special interest because of the heavy tail of the inverse gamma distribution and the conjectured potential of the PIGam model in dealing with highly over-dispersed data. Four field datasets (from Toronto, Texas, Michigan and Indiana) covering a wide range of over-dispersion characteristics were selected for analysis. \n\nThis study discovered that the disparities between the alternative models predictions are mainly associated with the sites where the observed crash frequency is significantly larger or smaller than expected for a site with similar traffic and physical characteristics. \n\nFor both scenarios, it was demonstrated that the PIGam model tends to predict a higher expectation for crash frequency than would the PLN and PG models, in order. In consequence, sites with unusually high number of observed crashes are likely to be ranked higher (in terms of expected crash frequency) when the PIGam model is used instead of the PLN model, and similarly when the PLN model is used instead of the PG model. \n\nFurthermore, the disparities between alternative model predictions were found to be even more important when the calibrated models were applied to predict crash frequency at sites with no observed crash count. For all four datasets, the PIGam model tended to predict higher expected crash frequencies than did the PLN and PG models, in order. \n\nFinally, a comparison between the models goodness-of-fit using the deviance information criterion (DIC) refuted the conjecture that models with heavy-tailed distributions will certainly perform better as the data become more over-dispersed. The author believes that the relative goodness-of-fit of alternative models to a given dataset is too complicated to be reliably predicted before actually fitting the models. However, the study demonstrated that models with similar measures of goodness-of-fit may predict considerably different crash frequencies at individual sites. This dissertation identified the relationships between alternative models’ predictions at individual sites and described the resulting practical implications of choosing one model over another.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.724
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOakTrust (Texas A&M University Libraries)Same topicTraffic and Road SafetyFrench-language works237,207