MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2005452274 · doi:10.1080/15389580903043446

Could ESC (Electronic Stability Control) Change the Way We Drive?

2009· article· en· W2005452274 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Christina M. Rudin-Brown, Richard W. Jenkins, Tanya Whitehead, Peter C. Burns

Bibliographic record

VenueTraffic Injury Prevention · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic and Road Safety
Canadian institutionsCanadian Armed ForcesTransport Canada
FundersTransport Canada
KeywordsPoison controlControl (management)Stability (learning theory)Electronic stability controlHuman factors and ergonomicsInjury preventionAutomotive engineeringEngineeringComputer scienceMedicineMedical emergencyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: ESC (Electronic Stability Control) is a crash avoidance technology that reduces the likelihood of collisions involving loss of control. Although past and emerging research indicates that ESC is effective in reducing collision rates and saving lives, and its inclusion in all vehicle platforms is encouraged, drivers may demonstrate behavioral adaptation or an overreliance on ESC that could offset or reduce its overall effectiveness. The main objective of the present study was to determine whether behavioral adaptation to ESC is likely to occur upon the widespread introduction of ESC into the Canadian vehicle fleet. Secondary objectives were to confirm the results of a previous ESC public survey and to generate a baseline measure for the future assessment of planned and ongoing ESC promotional activities in Canada. METHODS: Two separate telephone surveys evaluated drivers' perceptions and awareness of ESC. The first surveyed 500 randomly selected owners/drivers of passenger vehicles. The second surveyed 1017 owners/drivers of 2006-2008 ESC-equipped passenger vehicles from the provinces of Quebec and British Columbia, Canada. RESULTS: Though ESC drivers were much more likely than drivers of other vehicles to be aware of ESC (77% vs. 39%) and that their own vehicle was equipped with it (63% vs. 8%), 23 percent had never heard of it. Ninety percent of drivers who knew that their vehicle was equipped with ESC believed that ESC had made it safer to drive and reported being confident that ESC would work in an emergency. Twenty-three percent of ESC owners who knew their vehicle had ESC reported noticing long-lasting changes in their driving behavior since they began driving the vehicle. CONCLUSIONS: Collectively, results suggest that behavioral adaptation to ESC is likely in certain drivers; however, its proven effectiveness in reducing the likelihood of being involved in a serious crash probably outweighs any potential increases in unsafe driving. To fully benefit from ESC, vehicle manufacturers are encouraged to market ESC-equipped vehicles in a realistic, safe manner. Driver training and safety organizations are also encouraged to provide balanced educational information about ESC to their members.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.969
Threshold uncertainty score0.660

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.237
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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
Published2009
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTraffic Injury PreventionSame topicTraffic and Road SafetyFrench-language works237,207