The DOI matches its Crossref record; 43 of the 43 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Big data, traditional data and the tradeoffs between prediction and causality in highway-safety analysis
Abstract
Abstract The analysis of highway accident data is largely dominated by traditional statistical methods (standard regression-based approaches), advanced statistical methods (such as models that account for unobserved heterogeneity), and data-driven methods (artificial intelligence, neural networks, machine learning, and so on). These methods have been applied mostly using data from observed crashes, but this can create a problem in uncovering causality since individuals that are inherently riskier than the population as a whole may be over-represented in the data. In addition, when and where individuals choose to drive could affect data analyses that use real-time data since the population of observed drivers could change over time. This issue, the nature of the data, and the implementation target of the analysis imply that analysts must often tradeoff the predictive capability of the resulting analysis and its ability to uncover the underlying causal nature of crash-contributing factors. The selection of the data-analysis method is often made without full consideration of this tradeoff, even though there are potentially important implications for the development of safety countermeasures and policies. This paper provides a discussion of the issues involved in this tradeoff with regard to specific methodological alternatives and presents researchers with a better understanding of the trade-offs often being inherently made in their analysis.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Sample Selection Bias as a Specification Error
Heckman, J. J. (1979) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1912352 · Cited by 28,779
Classification and Regression by randomForest
Liaw, A. I., & Wiener, M. C. (2007) · Cited by 18,594
Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist's Companion
Kmenta, J. (2010) · Business Economics · doi:10.1057/be.2009.37 · Cited by 2,495
Statistical and Econometric Methods for Transportation Data Analysis
Washington, S. P., Karlaftis, M. G., & Mannering, F. (2003) · Chapman & Hall/CRC eBooks · doi:10.1201/9780203497111 · Cited by 1,901
Self-citationShadow Prices, Market Wages, and Labor Supply
Heckman, J. (1974) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1913937 · Cited by 1,852
Lord, D., & Mannering, F. (2010) · Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice · doi:10.1016/j.tra.2010.02.001 · Cited by 1,759
Self-citationGeneralized Econometric Models with Selectivity
Lee, L.-F. (1983) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1912003 · Cited by 1,426
Unobserved heterogeneity and the statistical analysis of highway accident data
Mannering, F., Shankar, V. N., & Bhat, C. R. (2016) · Analytic Methods in Accident Research · doi:10.1016/j.amar.2016.04.001 · Cited by 1,344
Self-citationAnalytic methods in accident research: Methodological frontier and future directions
Mannering, F. L., & Bhat, C. R. (2014) · Analytic Methods in Accident Research · doi:10.1016/j.amar.2013.09.001 · Cited by 1,171
Self-citationIdentification Problems in the Social Sciences
Manski, C. F. (1993) · Sociological Methodology · doi:10.2307/271005 · Cited by 1,130
Metadata
- Authors
- Mannering, F., Bhat, C. R., Shankar, V., & Abdel-Aty, M.
- Venue
- Analytic Methods in Accident Research
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2020-03
- Volume
- 25
- Pages
- 100113
- ISSN
- 2213-6657 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3000998105
- Cited by
- 367
- References
- 43
- FWCI
- 39.29
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Big data, traditional data and the tradeoffs between prediction and causality in highway-safety analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.amar.2020.100113
- The paper
- Mannering, F., Bhat, C. R., Shankar, V., & Abdel-Aty, M. (2020). Big data, traditional data and the tradeoffs between prediction and causality in highway-safety analysis. Analytic Methods in Accident Research. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amar.2020.100113
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.