Driving Task: How Older Drivers’ On-Road Driving Performance Relates to Abilities, Perceptions, and Restrictions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined a cohort of 227 older drivers and investigated the relationship between performance on the electronic Driver Observation Schedule (eDOS) driving task and: (1) driver characteristics; (2) functional abilities; (3) perceptions of driving comfort and abilities; and (4) self-reported driving restrictions. Participants (male: 70%; age: M = 81.53 years, SD = 3.37 years) completed a series of functional ability measures and scales on perceived driving comfort, abilities, and driving restrictions from the Year 2 Candrive/Ozcandrive assessment protocol, along with an eDOS driving task. Observations of participants' driving behaviours during the driving task were recorded for intersection negotiation, lane-changing, merging, low-speed maneuvers, and maneuver-free driving. eDOS driving task scores were high (M = 94.74; SD = 5.70) and significantly related to participants' perceived driving abilities, reported frequency of driving in challenging situations, and number of driving restrictions. Future analyses will explore potential changes in driving task scores over time.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".