MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W85774342 · doi:10.17226/22287

Factors Contributing to Median Encroachments and Cross-Median Crashes

2014· book· en· W85774342 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Research Board eBooks · 2014
Typebook
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic Prediction and Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCrashMedianWorkloadGeographyTransport engineeringOperations managementMedicineEngineeringComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Previous studies of contributory factors associated with cross-median crashes have typically focused on median width and average daily traffic (ADT). A few studies have looked at the influence of geometry and cross-sectional elements. These studies did not explore many other design and operational factors that may contribute to cross-median crash frequency or severity (e.g., interchange ramps, interchange spacing, mixture of vehicle types, peak-period volumes, peak-period duration, land use, access control, driver workload, posted speed, or presence of speed transition zones). All median-related incidents begin with a median encroachment. Reducing median encroachments will reduce both cross-median crashes and fixed-object crashes in the median. Consequently, analyzing median encroachments should provide additional insight into the causes of cross-median crashes. There is also a knowledge gap regarding countermeasures appropriate for the various factors contributing to median encroachments and cross-median crashes. Although installing a barrier will greatly reduce cross-median crashes, it will also increase fixed-object crashes and the crash risk of maintenance personnel. Other countermeasures besides barriers exist, and knowing which ones effectively address the contributory factors on a highway will allow an engineer to develop a more effective design. This report identifies design and operational factors that contribute to the frequency and severity of median encroachments and cross-median crashes. It also identifies countermeasures for addressing those contributory factors. For this project, the research team reviewed the literature on median encroachments and cross-median crashes. Based on a survey of states, Canadian provinces, and turnpike/toll road authorities, the team compiled a list of design and operational factors likely to contribute to median encroachments and cross-median crashes. The research team then collected data to determine the relative contribution of each of the factors to median encroachments and cross-median crashes. Appendix D of the report provides recommended guidelines for reducing the frequency and severity of median-related crashes. This material is designed to be easily incorporated into a transportation agency’s design manual.

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.

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)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.768
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.278 · 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