MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Estimating Workload Demands of Turning Left at Intersections of Varying Complexity

2009· article· en· W1810820357 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEngineering Technology and Methodologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorkloadComputer scienceOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The challenge posed by left-turns has been well-documented in literature. Left-turns are thought to be complex roadway sites resulting in a significant proportion of motor-vehicle collisions. The purpose of the present study was to determine whether subjective and objective workload is affected by left-turns of varying complexity (i.e., information processing and maneuvering) in a sample of young inexperienced drivers. A secondary goal was to determine the effect of administering a secondary task on subjective workload. To this end, 60 inexperienced drivers completed four simulated driving scenarios of varying visual and maneuvering complexity. Half of participants completed an objective measure of workload (i.e., a secondary task) while all participants completed a subjective measure of workload upon completion of each scenario. The results demonstrated the effect of complexity on subjective and objective workload. Specifically, information processing complexity was found to significantly affect both subjective and objective measures of participants’ workload while the influence of maneuvering complexity was detected through subjective load only.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.223
Threshold uncertainty score0.340

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEngineering Technology and MethodologiesFrench-language works237,207