Sentiment de sécurité des piétons aux intersections signalées à Montréal et Québec, Canada : influence de l’environnement bâti et routier, du phasage des feux et des caractéristiques individuelles des piétons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
De nombreuses études établissent une relation entre la sécurité routière et l’environnement bâti et routier ainsi que les caractéristiques individuelles des piétons. Cependant, peu d’études s’intéressent aux influences de ces variables sur le sentiment de sécurité des piétons. Ce mémoire s’inscrit donc dans cette démarche, avec une attention particulière donnée à la comparaison des systèmes de gestion des traversées piétonnes aux intersections avec feux de circulation, d’où l’intérêt de Montréal et de Québec (Canada) comme terrains d’étude. En effet, la priorité piétonne via des phasages exclusifs est une pratique systématique à Québec contrairement à Montréal. L’objectif est donc d’explorer la relation entre le risque perçu et vécu des piétons et ces différences de phasage, mais aussi avec les caractéristiques des intersections et des piétons eux-mêmes. Les données proviennent d’observations et de questionnaires in situ et ont servi à effectuer des analyses bivariées (Khi carré et ANOVA) et une analyse multiniveau. Nos résultats montrent que ce sont surtout le phasage des feux et les caractéristiques de l’environnement bâti et routier qui ont une influence sur le sentiment de sécurité (vitesse maximale autorisée, volume de véhicule, volume de piétons, etc.) Ces résultats contribuent à une meilleure compréhension des dynamiques aux intersections avec feux et à leur phasage, ainsi qu’à une meilleure évaluation des enjeux liés à l’insécurité ressentie des piétons. \n \nNumerous studies establish a relationship between road safety and the built and road environment as well as the individual characteristics of pedestrians. However, few studies are interested in the influences of these variables on pedestrians’ feelings of safety. This dissertation focuses on that issue. Specifically, it compares the feelings of safety for the management systems for pedestrian crossings at intersections with traffic lights in Montreal and Quebec City (Canada). In Quebec City, pedestrian priority by way of exclusive phasing is a systematic practise, unlike in Montreal. The objective is therefore to explore the relationship between the perceived and experienced risk of pedestrians and these traffic control differences, but also with consideration to the characteristics of the intersections and pedestrians. The data come from in-situ observations and from a street survey and were used to carry out bivariate analysis (chi-squared and analysis of variance) and a multi-level analysis. Our results show that it is mainly the phasing of the traffic lights and the characteristics of the built and road environment which have an influence on the feeling of safety (maximum permitted speed, number of vehicles, number of pedestrians, etc.) These results contribute to a better understanding of the dynamics at intersections with traffic lights and their phasing, as well as a better assessment of issues related to the feeling of safety perceived by pedestrians.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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 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".