Drivers’ Interaction with Adaptive Cruise Control on Dry and Snowy Roads with Various Tire-Road Grip Potentials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates drivers’ interaction with Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC) in different road conditions and identifies areas of improvement. Ninety-six drivers drove with the ACC in a driving simulator showing either a summer scenery and a dry road with high grip potential or a winter scenery with a snowy road and reduced grip potential. The results show that on snowy roads the drivers set in average a lower ACC speed and preferred a larger ACC time gap. Drivers’ workload and effort were higher when using the ACC on snowy as compared to dry roads. Generally, the use of a shorter ACC gap resulted in lower ratings of comfort, safety, and trust and higher ratings of mental workload and effort in both dry and snowy road conditions. The drivers judged that ACC was braking too late and maintained a too short gap to the forward vehicle, especially when the ACC was set to 1 second as compared to a 1.8-second time gap. A future adaptation of ACC’s control strategy to reduced tire-road grip potential would not only improve comfort and user acceptance of the human driver but also increase the potential to react in emergency situations with braking or evasive steering.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".