MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2054058141 · doi:10.1109/memea.2013.6549728

Cognitive change measurement through driving navigation ability sensing and analysis

2013· article· en· W2054058141 on OpenAlexaff
Rafik Goubran, Frank Knoefel

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOlder Adults Driving Studies
Canadian institutionsBruyèreUniversity of OttawaCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBaseline (sea)TRIPS architectureComputer scienceCognitionBacktrackingCoping (psychology)Task (project management)Artificial intelligenceEngineeringPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper explores the detection of cognitive change in individuals by sensing a high cognition task (driving). The paper proposes algorithms for the analysis of a set of training trips by a driver to create baseline attributes and features for measurement of baseline navigational performance. Algorithms are proposed for the measurement of subsequent trips through comparison to the baseline performance attributes and the paper shows that trips with common coping mechanisms for cognitive decline can be identified and classified. Common coping mechanisms include use of familiar routes by backtracking to home or reduction in trip complexity through reduction in the variety of stops or in the number of stops are all identified. In addition, algorithms are proposed that identify changes in the navigation ability by indicating routing mistakes or poor choices. The paper shows that the measurement of patient performance can be compared to gold standard Google Maps based routing and navigation choices providing a baseline for a patient's cognitive performance and that cognitive change could be detected in behavior change relative to this baseline including less efficient trip planning, reduced trip complexity or less optimal navigation through use of inefficient but more familiar routes as coping mechanisms.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.171
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 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

Citations14
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicOlder Adults Driving StudiesFrench-language works237,207