Temporal Transferability and Updating of Safety Planning Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accident prediction models play an important role in today’s safety analysis. Lately there has been particular interest in the development and application of these models in safety planning, for example, for zones of an urban area. Calibration of models for this purpose, however, can be quite complex. This paper examines the temporal transferability of the zonal accident prediction models by using appropriate evaluation measures of predictive performance to assess whether the relationship between the dependent and independent variables holds reasonably well across time. The two temporal contexts are the years 1996 and 2001, with updated 1996 models being used to predict 2001 accidents in each traffic zone of the City of Toronto. The paper examines alternative updating methods for temporal transfer by imagining that only a sample of 2001 data is available. The sensitivity of the performance of the updated models to the 2001 sample size is explored. The updating procedures examined include the Bayesian updating approach and the application of calibration factors to the 1996 models. Models calibrated for the 2001 samples were also explored, but were found to be inadequate. The results show that the models are not transferable in a strict statistical sense. However, relative measures of transferability indicate that the transferred models yield useful information in the application context. Also, it is concluded that the updated accident models using the calibration factors produce better results for predicting the number of accidents in the year 2001 than using the Bayesian Approach.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".