MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2094980377 · doi:10.1155/2014/834131

Driving Simulator Study of Effect of Inside Shoulder on Vehicle Operation

2014· article· en· W2094980377 on OpenAlexaff
Han Ding, Xiaohua Zhao, Jian Rong, Liande Zhong

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Mechanical Engineering · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic and Road Safety
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Transportation of Ontario
FundersKey Laboratory of Road Traffic Safety Ministry of Public SecurityNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsDriving simulatorSimulationPosition (finance)Automotive engineeringComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

According to the Chinese Design Specification for Highway Alignment (JTG D20-2006), eight-lane expressways should be paved with an inside shoulder of 2.5 m; however, this regulation is rarely obeyed in engineering practice. On the basis of driving simulator experiment, this research examined the impacts of inside shoulder on vehicle operation with and without the speed limitation. A virtual scenario, consisting of five expressways with different inside shoulder widths, was created and displayed in driving simulator, and vehicle operational data—speed and lane position—were recorded. Authors used analysis of variance (ANOVA) and contrast analysis to examine whether inside shoulder width had statistically significant effects on travel speed and lane position. Analytical results indicated that there is a kind of quadratic relationship between inside shoulder width and driver's speed choice, while driver's speed choice is not significantly affected by inside shoulder width. What is more, inside shoulder width has statistically significant effects on vehicle's lane positions, and vehicle's lane position is negatively correlated to inside shoulder width. Specifically, the vehicle can be maintained at the center of lane when the inside shoulder width is 2.5 m.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score0.503

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations5
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in Mechanical EngineeringSame topicTraffic and Road SafetyFrench-language works237,207