MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1997619170 · doi:10.1145/2516540.2516579

Anticipatory driving competence

2013· article· en· W1997619170 on OpenAlexafffund
Patrick Stahl, Birsen Donmez, Greg A. Jamieson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHuman-Automation Interaction and Safety
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersAUTO21 Network of Centres of Excellence
KeywordsAnticipation (artificial intelligence)Competence (human resources)FacilitationComputer scienceCognitive psychologyPsychologyHuman–computer interactionArtificial intelligenceSocial psychologyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Anticipation of future events is recognized to be a significant element of driver competence. Surely, guiding one's behavior through the anticipation of future traffic states provides potential gains in recognition and reaction times. However, the role of anticipation in driving and ways to support it have not been systematically studied. In this paper, we identify the characteristics of anticipatory driving and provide a working definition. In particular, we distinguish it from overall driving goals such as eco or defensive driving, but rather present it as a high-level competence for efficient positioning of the vehicle to ultimately facilitate these goals. We also argue that anticipation occurs within the context of stereotypical scenarios and provide an initial taxonomy for the identification of such scenarios. We suggest the Decision Ladder as a useful way of modeling anticipatory driving and finally discuss a potential approach for the facilitation of anticipatory driving through skill- and rule-based behavior, which can allow for shortcuts on the Decision Ladder.

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 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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.816
Threshold uncertainty score0.957

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)0.2550.044

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.335 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations17
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHuman-Automation Interaction and SafetyFrench-language works237,207