MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2569836025 · doi:10.1145/3003715.3005465

Autonomous Driving in the Real World

2016· article· en· W2569836025 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHuman-Automation Interaction and Safety
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutopilotAutomationComputer scienceSelf drivingComputer securityHuman–computer interactionEngineeringTransport engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As autonomous driving emerges, it is important to understand drivers' experiences with autonomous cars. We report the results of an online survey with Tesla owners using two autonomous driving features, Autopilot and Summon. We found that current users of these features have significant driving experience, high self-rated computer expertise and care about how automation works. Surprisingly, although automation failures are extremely common they were not perceived as risky. The most commonly occurring failures included the failure to detect lanes and uncomfortable speed changes of the vehicle. Additionally, a majority of the drivers emphasized the importance of being alert while driving with autonomous features and aware of the limitations of the current technology. Our main contribution is to provide a picture of attitudes and experiences towards semi-autonomous driving, revealing that some drivers adopting these features may not perceive autonomous driving as risky, even in an environment with regular automation failures.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.729
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

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)0.0470.004

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.340 · 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

Quick stats

Citations132
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHuman-Automation Interaction and SafetyFrench-language works237,207