MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7099998211

Geedipally, Lord and Dhavala 1 A Caution about using Deviance Information Criterion While Modeling Traffic Crashes Technical Communication

2013· article· en· W7099998211 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSeed and Plant Biochemistry
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeviance information criterionDeviance (statistics)CrashNegative binomial distributionBayesian probabilitySoftwareBayesian information criterionParameterized complexity
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Geedipally, Lord and Dhavala 2 The Poisson-Gamma (PG) or negative binomial (NB) model still remains the most popular method used for analyzing count data. In the software WinBUGS (or any other software used for Bayesian analyses), there are different ways to parameterize the NB model. In general, either a PG (based on the Poisson-mixture) or a NB (based on the Pascal distribution) modeling framework can be used to relate traffic crashes to the explanatory variables. However, it is important to note that the way the model is parameterized will influence the output of the Deviance Information Criterion (DIC) values. The objective of this short study is to document the difference between the PG and NB models in the estimation of the DIC. This is especially important given that the NB/PG model is still the most frequently used model in highway safety research and applications. To accomplish the study objective, PG and NB models were developed using the crash data collected at 4-legged signalized intersections in Toronto, Ont. The study results showed that there is a considerable difference in the estimation of the DIC

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.918
Threshold uncertainty score0.179

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.184 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSeed and Plant BiochemistryFrench-language works237,207