In-Vehicle Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) Countermeasures to Improve Older Driver Intersection Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A literature review of in-vehicle intelligent transportation systems (ITS) is presented for the purposes of determining which technologies may benefit older drivers at intersections. Based on the review, three experimental studies were conducted to determine intersection behaviour of those aged 18 to 24, 25 to 35, 55 to 64 and 65+ with the assistance of a range of in-vehicle intersection signs. The first experiment used the University of Calgary Driving Simulator (UCDS) to measure intersection performance at amber onset until drivers stopped or cleared the intersection. In the second experiment, two in-vehicle signs, presented in a head-up display format, were evaluated to determine if intersection performance improved or unwanted adaptive behaviours occurred. The third experiment tested the comprehension of 24 in-vehicle signs by older and younger drivers. Overall, the multi-method, multi-measure approach describes older driver performance at intersections, with an innovative in-vehicle technology and design guidelines for that technology.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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".