MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2007199021 · doi:10.3141/1779-04

Model for Situation Awareness and Driving: Application to Analysis and Research for Intelligent Transportation Systems

2001· article· en· W2007199021 on OpenAlexafffund
Michael L. Matthews, David Bryant, Robert D Webb, Joanne L. Harbluk

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHuman-Automation Interaction and Safety
Canadian institutionsTransport Canada
FundersTransport Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceAviationIntelligent transportation systemContext (archaeology)PerceptionSituation awarenessSystems engineeringHuman–computer interactionTransport engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The concept of situation awareness (SA)—applied broadly over the last decade to human factors issues in aviation, nuclear power generation, and military combat systems—has only recently been introduced to the analysis of driver behavior. In a driving context, SA involves spatial, temporal, goal, and system awareness. These aspects of SA have been integrated into a goal-oriented model of driver behavior that encompasses strategic, tactical, and operational goals of driving. Maintenance of appropriate SA for each type of goal is based on three underlying processes: perception, comprehension of disparate information, and projection and prediction. The model can be used as a basis for understanding the possible impact of new generations of intelligent transportation systems (ITSs) on driver performance. The model allows ITSs to be analyzed for how they are likely to enhance or impair a driver’s performance in pursuit of each type of driving goal. The model may provide a way to determine how an ITS supports or interferes with the required SA to meet a driving goal (e.g., an onboard navigation system that assists strategic decisions).

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)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.195
GPT teacher head0.499
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations96
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research BoardSame topicHuman-Automation Interaction and SafetyFrench-language works237,207