Mental Workload, Longitudinal Driving Behavior, and Adequacy of Car-Following Models for Incidents in Other Driving Lane
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The values on parameters describing longitudinal driving behavior in car-following models differ substantially between drivers. Different individual interactions with the environment are assumed to play an important role, which might be explained through mental workload. Therefore a driving simulator experiment with a repeated measures design was performed to investigate to what extent perception of an incident in the other driving lane influences physiological indicators as well as subjective estimates of mental workload and longitudinal driving behavior. As almost none of the current models of car-following behavior incorporate mental workload as a determinant of driving behavior, an investigation was conducted by using a calibration approach for joint estimation to determine whether these models, represented by the intelligent driver model and the Helly model, adequately described longitudinal driving behavior in case of incidents in the other driving lane. The results indicated that perception of an incident in the other driving lane influenced mental workload as measured by physiological indicators and longitudinal driving behavior. In addition, the results indicated that current car-following models did not adequately describe driving behavior in case of incidents in the other driving lane.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".