MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7056385634

Evaluation of machine learning algorithms as predictive tools in road safety analysis

2022· dissertation· en· W7056385634 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity Library (University of Saskatchewan) · 2022
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicMagnetic confinement fusion research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSupport vector machineDecision treeRandom forestCrashProcess (computing)Regression analysisKey (lock)Set (abstract data type)RegressionRelation (database)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Highway Safety Manual (HSM)’s road safety management process (RSMP) represents the state-of-the-practice procedure that transportation professionals employ to monitor and improve safety on existing roadway sites. RSMP requires the development of safety performance functions (SPFs), which are the key regression tools in the Highway Safety Manual’s RSMP used to predict crash frequency given a set of roadway and traffic factors. Although developing SPFs using traditional regression modeling have been proven to be reliable tools for road safety predictive analytics, some limitations and constraints have been highlighted in the literature, such as the assumption of a probability distribution, selection of a pre-defined functional form, a possible correlation between independent variables, and possible transferability issues. An alternative to traditional regression models as predictive tools is the use of Machine Learning (ML) algorithms. Although ML provides a new modeling technique, it still has made-in assumptions and their performance in collision frequency modeling needs to be studied. This research 1) compares the prediction performance of three well-known ML algorithms, i.e., Support Vector Machine (SVM), Decision Tree (DT), and Random Forest (RF), to traditional SPFs, 2) conducts sensitivity analysis and compare ML with the functional form of the negative binomial (NB) model as default traditional regression modeling technique, and 3) applies and validates ML algorithms in network screening (hotspot identification), which is the first step in the RSMP. To achieve these objectives, a dataset of urban signalized and unsignalized intersections from two major municipalities in Saskatchewan (Canada) were considered as a case study.\nThe results showed that the ML prediction accuracies are comparable with that of the NB model. Moreover, the sensitivity analysis proved that ML algorithms predictions are mostly affected by changes in traffic volume, rather than other roadway factors. Lastly, the ML-based measure consistency in identifying hotspots appeared to be comparable to SPF-based measures, e.g., the excess (predicted and expected) average crash frequency. Overall, the results of this research support the use of ML as a predictive tool in network screening, which provides transportation practitioners with an alternative modeling approach to identify collision-prone locations where countermeasures aimed at reducing collision frequency at urban intersections can be installed.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.804
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.3790.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity Library (University of Saskatchewan)Same topicMagnetic confinement fusion researchFrench-language works237,207