MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2059002337 · doi:10.1109/itsc.2012.6338721

Motion stereo-based collision avoidance for an intelligent smart car door system

2012· article· en· W2059002337 on OpenAlexaff
Christian Scharfenberger, Samarjit Chakraborty, John Zelek, David A. Clausi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAutonomous Vehicle Technology and Safety
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCollision avoidanceComputer scienceCollisionKinematicsCollision avoidance systemAdvanced driver assistance systemsController (irrigation)SimulationEngineeringArtificial intelligenceComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Driver assistance systems in today's cars assist drivers when the car is in motion. However, there is relatively less, to almost no work on assistance systems when the car is stationary. This paper focuses on such a system, and describes the design and realization of a collision avoidance system for a novel car door assistance system, the smart car door. An omnidirectional camera is attached to each side-view mirror of a car, and the fold-in fold-out movement of the mirror is used to generate 3D information about static obstacles next to the car based on a motion stereo approach. The car door controller uses the sensor data to compute collision-free door opening paths, and the two-hinge kinematic system of the smart car door enables to move the door around static obstacles. The latter increases the door entrance area in tight parking lots, which drastically improves the ingress/egress to/from a vehicle. These are enhancements to currently available systems that only indicate the presence of obstacles next to the car. Experiments on a fully realized prototype demonstrated a robust generation of 3D information about obstacles next to the car. A study with 20 test users showed that our system strongly supports the users to avoid collisions when operating the door.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.538
Threshold uncertainty score0.443

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 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

Citations3
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAutonomous Vehicle Technology and SafetyFrench-language works237,207