MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2062402846 · doi:10.1177/1541931214581454

Driver Engagement in Notifications

2014· article· en· W2062402846 on OpenAlexaff
Wayne C.W. Giang, Liberty Hoekstra-Atwood, Birsen Donmez

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHuman-Automation Interaction and Safety
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSmartwatchWearable computerComputer scienceHuman–computer interactionWearable technologyExploratory researchInternet privacyDisplay sizeSmartphone applicationMultimediaEmbedded systemOperating systemDisplay device

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Smartwatches and other wearables are being developed for the consumer market and will most likely be used by drivers, but there is little investigation into their influence on driver behaviour. Smartwatches are able to provide certain smartphone functionalities. For example, they can provide notifications, such as text mes-sages. Because watches are always “on-hand”, drivers may find it easier and be more compelled to interact with them in comparison to smartphones. We conducted an exploratory driving simulator study to compare a smartwatch and a smartphone in terms of time to engagement with the device and drivers’ glance patterns. The results show that participants (n=6) chose to engage with the smartwatch faster than with the smartphone, but took longer to read notifications. The smartwatch also led to a larger number of glances greater than 2 seconds than the smartphone. Further investigation of the effects on driving performance is required.

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)0.013
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.271 · 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

Citations31
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual MeetingSame topicHuman-Automation Interaction and SafetyFrench-language works237,207