Observed Driver Glance Behavior at Roadside Advertising Signs
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Express routes in North America are becoming more crowded, both in traffic density and in visual clutter. Higher demand for driver attention is a possible concern for regulators. Advertising signs add to this demand on visual attention. This study focused on the glance behavior of 25 drivers at various advertising signs along an expressway in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. The average duration of the glances for the subjects was 0.57 s [standard deviation ( SD) = 0.41], and in total there was an average of 35.6 glances per subject ( SD = 26.4). Active signs that contained movable displays or components made up 51% of the signs and received significantly more glances (69% of all glances and 78% of long glances). The number of glances was significantly lower for passive signs (0.64 glances per subject per sign) than for active signs (greater than 1.31 glances per subject per sign). The number of long glances was also greater for active signs than for passive signs. Sign placement in the visual field may be critical to a sign being noticed or not. Empirical information is provided to assist regulatory agencies in setting policy on commercial signing.
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it