MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2736482555 · doi:10.1109/memea.2017.7985845

Driver identification using vehicle acceleration and deceleration events from naturalistic driving of older drivers

2017· article· en· W2736482555 on OpenAlexaff
Nathanael C. Fung, Bruce Wallace, Adrian D. C. Chan, Rafik Goubran, Michelle M. Porter, Shawn Marshall, Frank Knoefel

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOlder Adults Driving Studies
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of OttawaBruyèreCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccelerationLinear discriminant analysisIdentification (biology)Computer scienceDriving simulatorSimulationMachine learningArtificial intelligenceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Driving is a common task that involves skill and individual preferences that can differ between drivers. The unique driving behaviours can be beneficial for differentiating drivers of shared vehicles and identifying differences between older drivers with normal and declining driving abilities. This paper presents a method for identifying individual drivers based on motor vehicle acceleration and deceleration events from their natural driving behaviour. We provide a novel approach to driver identification based on classification using multiple in-vehicle sensor signals collected in naturalistic conditions with anonymized driving locations. The dataset consists of thousands of trips from a selection of 14 stable-health older drivers (70 years and older) from their first year of the Candrive research study. We trained separate multiclass linear discriminant analysis classifiers to recognize unique patterns in their acceleration and deceleration events to predict the identity of the driver out of a group of drivers. For five different drivers, the acceleration and deceleration events were used to distinguish between drivers at 34% and 30% average accuracy, respectively. By taking a majority vote among the events, the accuracy improved to 61%, exceeding by about three times the null model of random guessing. This performance improvement continues when expanding the group from 2 to 14 drivers. The analysis shows potential for identifying drivers by the patterns in their driving maneuvers such as turning and stopping.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.345 · 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.

Study designObservational
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

Citations42
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicOlder Adults Driving StudiesFrench-language works237,207