Theoretical Model Of The Visibility Level And Practical Means Of Its Implementation
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
Driving a car, especially in city traffi c, is a greatly complex process combining observation, recognition and psychomotoric functions. Safe, effi cient and comfortable driving requires a specifi c level of visibility of road obstacles. The diffi culty in spotting an obstacle in the road and in evaluating its effect on driving depends on such factors as lighting conditions in the road and its vicinity, presence of sources of glare, sources of distracting and attracting attention in the driver's fi eld of vision, for example, electronic outdoor advertising boards (LED billboards), the obstacle's geometric and photometric properties, observation conditions and the driver's visual performance. The research on the visibility of obstacles in the road has shown that the satisfaction of normative requirements in relation to average luminance and the general and longitudinal uniformity does not guarantee that an obstacle will be spotted. Thus, it is necessary to introduce another criterion to make it possible to evaluate the visibility of obstacles in the road. Visibility formula was described by Adrian in 1989 and applied with visibility levels in North America as quality criterion. For the purposes of designing road lighting systems, the visibility criterion is not used in European countries yet. Due to simplifi cations, other standards and requirements, it is also impossible to directly employ the visibility criterion used in United States, namely the Small Target Visibility, based to a large extent on Adrian's visibility model.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it