MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2063245555 · doi:10.1177/154193121005402108

Passing Parked Police Cars: Speed as a Function of Emergency Lighting, Police Car Orientation, and Driver Experience

2010· article· en· W2063245555 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Andrew K. Mayer, Jeff K. Caird, Shaunna Milloy, Nicole B. Percival, Amanda D. Ohlhauser

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic and Road Safety
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersAUTO21 Network of Centres of Excellence
KeywordsSpeed limitFidelityOrientation (vector space)Transport engineeringAeronauticsSimulationEngineeringComputer securityComputer scienceTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Police vehicles and police officers working on the roadway shoulder are at risk for being struck by passing vehicles. The conspicuity of police vehicles may affect detection and speed regulation. Fifteen novice and fifteen experienced drivers participated in six experimental sessions over six months with a moderate-fidelity driving simulator. Police cars were parked on the shoulder and oriented forward or backward with their emergency lights on or off. When the emergency lights were on, drivers slowed down more than when the lights were off. The orientation of the police vehicle had minimal effects on speed changes and novice and experienced drivers did not appreciably differ in their speed regulation. When compared to the criteria of reducing speed to 60 km/h when passing an emergency vehicle, which is the law in Alberta, only 16% of all drivers reduced their speed below this limit. Results suggest that drivers do not sufficiently reduce their speed in the presence of police cars and emergency vehicles should always use their emergency lights whenever they are parked on the side of the road.

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)0.003
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual MeetingSame topicTraffic and Road SafetyFrench-language works237,207