Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Public acceptance of autonomous and connected cars Bobby CottamThe self-driving car, long a ubiquitous staple of science fiction, is finally becoming a reality.The requisite technology is under development.There are issues of liability, but they will be relatively small matters to resolve if a burgeoning market and an available profit margin provides the right incentive.The one true obstacle left to the reality of the self-driving car is that of public acceptance.This might prove to be a very real obstacle, as many people are wary, if not out-rightly fearful, of being on the road with autonomous vehicles.And if the public will not accept these vehicles, then none of the other considerations really mattertechnological advancements or the resolution of legal issues will become a moot point.We can hope to sway public opinion towards wider acceptance by, first and foremost, answering the primary challenges raised against this new technology.The first and loudest concern is: will it be safe?Before it can be released, much less fully accepted, the technology must be exceptionally safe.But here we cannot allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good.In 2013, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the United States had over 5 million reported accidents with over 1 million injuries and more than 30 000 fatalities.Progress must be seen not as eliminating these occurrences, but rather in reducing them.The metric for success must be in reducing fatal accidentsby 50%, 75%, or 90%not in reducing the accident record to zero.It is a statistically shown reality that young and inexperienced drivers are some of the most dangerous; if we could bring the quality of autonomous vehicles merely to the driving ability of an attentive experienced middle aged adult, that would be a happy improvement that most parents would gladly embraceboth for the safety of their children and for the likely reduction of their insurance premium.A second common objection comes from those that find driving intrinsically enjoyable.To many a car represents freedom and funit is the sentiment stemming from the quintessential car commercial, a scene where a lone motorist speeds along some twisty mountain road, hair blowing in the breeze.However, here we must admit that not all driving is equally enjoyable.The most ardent motorist will likely agree that a daily commute during Chicago rush hour is a chore.The same is true of exceedingly long tripsmost people would be more than ok with leaving Los Angeles at eight in the evening, watching a movie, having a drink, and then waking up in Denver in the morning.This would allow them to combine the convenience and economy of driving while not having to give up productive time that the drive would traditionally require; for family trips it would certainly make it easier to entertain the children.Autonomous vehicles need not eliminate driving as a hobby.If unwelcome, difficult, and tedious driving was turned over to autonomous vehicles, more traditional driving could remain as a purely recreational activity.Driving could become an activity like hunting or sailingsomething that used to be done out of necessity that now remains for the thrill.It is also important to note that this objection, that of enjoying driving, appears to reflect a substantial generational bias.The newest generation of commuters is far less inclined to enjoy driving or to even want to drivethey are getting their licenses later, and are comfortable with the train or an Uber.This tech-heavy generation chases the newest tablet far more than the nicest car, and is inclined to select methods of travel that keep their hands and attention free for other tasks.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,028 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,015 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».