MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7074734209

Effects of drivers' action on the severity of emergency vehicle collisions

2012· article· en· W7074734209 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Waves and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCrashAction (physics)Control (management)CollisionEvent (particle physics)Poison controlMotor vehicle crash
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Emergency vehicles (EVs) are used to provide essential services to society in the event of an emergency. Hence, crashes involving these vehicles are a concern, and investigating crash characteristics of EVs is the first step toward improving their safety. In particular, the contribution of any improper driver behavior or actions must be identified before (a) a program of behavior modification is recommended to authorities or (b) countermeasures are implemented to improve road safety, or both. This study attempts to identify the driver actions that contribute significantly to the severity of a crash involving at least one EV by using data from the Province of Alberta, Canada, for the period from 1999 to 2008. In addition, the impact of control variables formed from demographic, vehicle, environmental, and behavioral factors will also be explored. The results indicate that drivers' violations of the road rules significantly contributed to increasing the severity of crashes. Non-EV drivers' errors, nonrepairable damage to the vehicle, collision of an EV with a two-wheeler, and sun glare were some of the other variables that had significant influence on crash severity.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.228
Threshold uncertainty score0.452

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshareSame topicSeismic Waves and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207