Reliability prediction for the vehicles equipped with advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) and passive safety systems (PSS)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The human error has been reported as a major root cause in road accidents in today's world. The human as a driver in road vehicles composed of human, mechanical and electrical components is constantly exposed to changing surroundings (e.g., road conditions, environment)which deteriorate the driver's capacities leading to a potential accident. The auto industries and transportation authorities have realized that similar to other complex and safety sensitive transportation systems, the road vehicles need to rely on both advanced technologies (i.e., Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS)) and Passive Safety Systems (PSS) (e.g.,, seatbelts, airbags) in order to mitigate the risk of accidents and casualties. In this study, the advantages and disadvantages of ADAS as active safety systems as well as passive safety systems in road vehicles have been discussed. Also, this study proposes models that analyze the interactions between human as a driver and ADAS Warning and Crash Avoidance Systems and PSS in the design of vehicles. Thereafter, the mathematical models have been developed to make reliability prediction at any given time on the road transportation for vehicles equipped with ADAS and PSS. Finally, the implications of this study in the improvement of vehicle designs and prevention of casualties are 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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".