Public perceptions of the use of dynamic message signs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Intelligent transportation systems have been promoted as a means to improve both the efficiency and safety of the road network. The effectiveness of advanced technologies in improving road safety has been an area of research which has thus far yielded mixed results. In order to ensure that advanced technologies deliver on their intended outcomes, more research has to be devoted to understanding road users' perceptions and reactions to these systems. This study examines drivers' perceptions of the use of dynamic message signs and their self‐reported reactions to the messages displayed. In general, drivers support the use of highway electronic boards for traffic incident reports and weather information which have an impact on traffic delays and level of service. They also think that it is a good idea to display road safety messages and to remind drivers to drive safely and be courteous on the roads. Moreover, most drivers reported that they do read and think about the messages displayed and react positively to some of the road safety messages.
Stored with the screening record, where it is evidence for the labels above.
How this classification was reachedexpand
The three-model screen
all 5,600 screened works →All three models called this out of scope.
Survey of drivers' perceptions of dynamic message signs; transportation research.
This study examines drivers' perceptions of traffic signs, not research practice.
Transportation psychology study of drivers and dynamic message signs.
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".