Driver Distraction: Evaluation with Event Detection Paradigm
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effects of eight in-vehicle tasks on driver distraction were measured in a large, moving-base driving simulator. Forty-eight adults, ranging in age from 35 to 66, and 15 teenagers participated in the simulated drive. Hand-held and hands-free versions of phone dialing, voicemail retrieval, and incoming calls represented six of the eight tasks. Manual radio tuning and climate control adjustment were also included to allow comparison with tasks that have traditionally been present in vehicles. During the drive the participants were asked to respond to sudden movements in surrounding traffic. The driver’s ability to detect these sudden movements or events changed with the nature of the in-vehicle tasks that were being performed. Driving performance measures such as lane violations and heading error were also computed. The performance of the adult group was compared with the performance of the teenage drivers. Compared with the adults, the teens were found to choose unsafe following distances, have poor vehicle control skills, and be more prone to distraction from hand-held phone tasks.
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 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 | 0.008 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it