MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1985494604 · doi:10.1121/1.4777908

Driving performance and auditory distractions

2005· article· en· W1985494604 on OpenAlexaff
Elzbieta B. Slawinski, Jane F. MacNeil, Mona Motamedi, Benjamin Rich Zendel, Kirsten Dugdale, Michelle Johnson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicNoise Effects and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDistractionActive listeningCognitionPsychologySelective auditory attentionAudiologyAuditory perceptionAuditory stimuliEffects of sleep deprivation on cognitive performanceCognitive psychologyPerceptionSelective attentionCommunicationNeuroscienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Driving performance depends on the ability to divide attention during different tasks. In spite of the fact that driving abilities are associated with visual stimulation, driving performance depends on attention to stimulation and/or auditory distraction. Research shows that listening to the radio is a principal auditory distracter during the time of driving (Brodsky, 2002). In the laboratory a few experiments were conducted on the auditory distraction (e.g., music, stories) and signal processing by young and older drivers. Results show that older subjects involved in listening to the stream of information (independent of the hearing status) require higher intensity of the auditory stimulation than younger drivers. It was shown that cognition plays a role while listening to auditory stimuli. Moreover, it was demonstrated that driving performance was influenced by the type of performed music. A portion of these experiments and their results were presented at the Annual Meetings of CAA in 2002 and 2003 as well as being published in the Journal of Psychomusicology 18, 203–209. Complete results of the experiments will be discussed.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.316 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of AmericaSame topicNoise Effects and ManagementFrench-language works237,207