International survey of bicycling exposure, crash involvement, behaviors, and attitudes : preliminary results. Paper presented at the International Cycling Safety Conference, Hanover, Germany, 15-16 September 2015.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents some results from preliminary analyses of the data of an international online survey of bicycle riders, who reported riding at least once a month. On 4 July 2015, data from 7528 participants from 17 countries was available in the survey, and were subsequently cleaned and checked for consistency. The median distance ridden ranged from 30 km/week in Israel to 150 km/week in Greece (overall median 54 km/week). City/hybrid bicycles were the most common type of bicycle ridden (44%), followed by mountain (20%) and road bikes (15%). Almost half (47%) of the respondents rode 'nearly daily'. About a quarter rode daily to work or study (27%). Overall, 40% of respondents reported wearing a helmet ‘always’, varying from 2% in the Netherlands to 80% in Norway, while 25% reported ‘never’ wearing a helmet. Thus, individuals appeared to consistently either use or not use helmets. Helmet wearing rates were generally higher when riding for health/fitness than other purposes and appeared to be little affected by the type of riding location, but some divergences in these patterns were found among countries. Almost 29% of respondents reported being involved in at least one bicycle crash in the last year (ranging from 12% in Israel to 53% in Turkey). Among the most severe crashes for each respondent, about half of the crashes involved falling off a bicycle. Just under 10% of the most severe crashes for each respondent were reported to police. Among the bicycle- motor vehicle crashes, only a third were reported to police. Further analyses will address questions regarding the influence of factors such as demographic characteristics, type of bicycle ridden, and attitudes on both bicycle use and helmet wearing rates. (Author/publisher)
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".