MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2556398113 · doi:10.1109/tvt.2016.2631604

Recent Trends in Driver Safety Monitoring Systems: State of the Art and Challenges

2016· article· en· W2556398113 on OpenAlex

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.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAutonomous Vehicle Technology and Safety
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdvanced driver assistance systemsTransport engineeringContext (archaeology)EngineeringIntelligent transportation systemPerceptionRisk analysis (engineering)Computer scienceComputer securitySystems engineeringBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Driving in busy highways and roads is becoming complex and challenging, as more cars are hitting the roads. Safe driving requires attentive drivers, quality perception of the environment, awareness of the situation, and critical decision making to react properly in emergency situations. This paper provides an overview on driver safety monitoring systems. We study various driver sources of inattention while providing a comprehensive taxonomy. Then, different safety systems that tackle driver inattention are reported. Furthermore, we present the new generation of driver monitoring systems within the context of Internet of Cars. Thus, we introduce the concept of integrated safety, where smart cars collect information from the driver, the car, the road, and, most importantly, the surrounding cars to build an efficient environment for the driver. We conclude by highlighting issues and emerging trends envisioned by the research community.

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)0.000
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.970
Threshold uncertainty score0.437

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.205
Teacher spread0.192 · 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