MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2139252154 · doi:10.5014/ajot.64.2.288

Driving Performance and Susceptibility to Simulator Sickness: Are They Related?

2010· article· en· W2139252154 on OpenAlex
Nadia Mullen, Bruce Weaver, Julie Riendeau, Michel Bédard

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Occupational Therapy · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOlder Adults Driving Studies
Canadian institutionsSt. Joseph's Care GroupNOSM UniversityLakehead University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsSimulator sicknessDriving simulatorTest (biology)PsychologySimulationCognitionMotion sicknessMedicinePhysical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationComputer sciencePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We examined whether participants who failed to complete a simulated drive because of simulator sickness (dropouts) differed from those who completed the simulation (completers). Thirteen healthy older adult dropouts (mean age = 74.8 yr) and 12 comparable completers were compared on the following variables: on-road driving performance, the Useful Field of View test, the Attention Network Test, and the Trail Making Test Part A. Results showed that completers scored more demerit points during the on-road drive than did dropouts. In addition, only 1 of 13 comparisons based on participants' cognition was statistically significant. These results suggest that in healthy senior drivers, simulator sickness does not prevent examination of those who need it most (i.e., those with the poorest on-road driving performance) and that cognitive differences are not associated with dropping out because of simulator sickness.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.486

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.369 · 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