MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2299073690 · doi:10.1002/atr.1366

Driver's braking behavior approaching pedestrian crossings: a parametric duration model of the speed reduction times

2016· article· en· W2299073690 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Francesco Bella, Manuel Silvestri

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Transportation · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic and Road Safety
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWeibull distributionPedestrianReduction (mathematics)Parametric statisticsDriving simulatorSimulationDuration (music)VisibilityPoison controlCollisionEngineeringPedestrian crossingAutomotive engineeringBaseline (sea)Computer scienceTransport engineeringStatisticsMathematicsComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary The driver's braking behavior while approaching zebra crossings under different safety measures (curb extensions, parking restrictions, and advance yield markings) and without treatment (baseline condition) was examined. The speed reduction time was the variable used to describe the driver's behavior. Forty‐two drivers drove a driving simulator on an urban scenario in which the baseline condition and the safety measures were implemented. The speed reduction time was modeled with a parametric duration model to compare the effects on driver's braking behavior of vehicle dynamic variables and different countermeasures. The parametric accelerated failure time duration model with a Weibull distribution identified that the vehicle dynamic variables and only the countermeasure curb extensions affected, in a statistically significant way, the driver's speed reduction time in response to a pedestrian crossing. This result shows that the driver, because of the improved visibility of the pedestrian allowed by the curb extensions, was able to receive a clear information and better to adapt his approaching speed to yield to the pedestrian, avoiding abrupt maneuvers. This also means a reduction of likelihood of rear‐end collision due to less aggressive braking. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.835
Threshold uncertainty score0.249

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Citations44
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced TransportationSame topicTraffic and Road SafetyFrench-language works237,207