MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1986968726 · doi:10.4271/2013-01-0727

Forward Collision Warning Timing in Near Term Applications

2013· article· en· W1986968726 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

VenueSAE International Journal of Transportation Safety · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Reliability and Analysis Research
Canadian institutionsChrysler (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTerm (time)CollisionWarning systemComputer scienceComputer securityRisk analysis (engineering)BusinessTelecommunicationsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<div class="section abstract"><div class="htmlview paragraph">Forward Collision Warning (FCW) is a system intended to warn the driver in order to reduce the number of rear end collisions or reduce the severity of collisions. However, it has the potential to generate driver annoyances and unintended consequences due to high ineffectual (false or unnecessary) alarms with a corresponding reduction in the total system effectiveness. The ineffectual alarm rate is known to be closely associated with the “time to issue warning.” This results in a conflicting set of requirements. The earlier the time the warning is issued, the greater probability of reducing the severity of the impact or eliminating it. However, with an earlier warning time there is a greater chance of ineffectual warning, which could result in significant annoyance, frequent complaints and the driver's disengagement of the FCW. Disengaging the FCW eliminates its potential benefits. A shorter warning time may be beneficial; it would reduce ineffectual alarm rates and thus reduce driver's annoyance level, increasing the driver's confidence in the system, which leads to improve overall system efficiency. To use a shorter warning time, its impact needs to be understood.</div><div class="htmlview paragraph">In this paper an analysis of certain factors affecting the time to issue warnings is presented. A kinematics model is used to simulate variation in driving scenarios and driver characteristics, such as driver reaction time and brake force level. The analysis relies on a stochastic model that uses a set of distributions of driver responses in rear end collision avoidance maneuvers, along with the relation between crash severity/hypothetic fatality rates (HFR), to estimate the impact of the different proposed warning strategies. The study finds that a shorter warning time may be beneficial. The analysis is limited in scope to the simplest, but common, driving scenarios and for the first time quantitatively studies the impact of shorter time to warn.</div></div>

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.752
Threshold uncertainty score0.317

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.287 · 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