MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2050870753 · doi:10.13031/2013.12349

Factors Contributing to Guidance Performance when Using a CameraâBased Guidance Aid

2003· article· en· W2050870753 on OpenAlexaff
Peng Tang, Danny Mann

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Safety and Health · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSimulation and Modeling Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTilt (camera)Field of viewComputer visionArtificial intelligenceOpticsComputer sciencePhysicsMathematicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A guidance aid is a device that provides guidance information to the driver rather than replacing the driver. With a camera-based guidance aid, the view seen by a forward-looking video camera is displayed on a monitor situated within the operator station of the vehicle. As the vehicle moves forward, images of the ground scroll vertically across the monitor. The rate at which the image scrolls, the image velocity, is related to the forward velocity of the vehicle, the placement of the camera (height and tilt angle), and the optical characteristics of the guidance camera. When tested with a tractor at forward velocities between 1.6 and 12.8 km/h, lateral error increased linearly as image velocity increased. Driver self-confidence decreased linearly as image velocity increased. Based on subjective feedback, drivers preferred a camera tilt angle of 20 degrees (over either 30 degrees or 40 degrees) because it yielded the greatest look-ahead distance. Statistically, a tilt angle of 30 degrees was best for a camera with a narrow field of view (narrow FOV, 20 degrees in the lateral direction). For a camera with a wide field of view (wide FOV, 39 degrees in the lateral direction), there was no statistical difference. For the narrow FOV camera, a camera height of 1.1 m yielded statistically smaller lateral errors than a camera height of 1.5 m. There was no statistical difference for the wide FOV camera. Overall, the lateral error was statistically smaller for the narrow FOV camera than for the wide FOV camera due to the difference in the lateral ratio for each camera, where the lateral ratio is the ratio of the lateral field of view of the camera to the fixed monitor width.

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)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 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

Citations3
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural Safety and HealthSame topicSimulation and Modeling ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207