MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2795536980 · doi:10.4271/2018-01-0514

Driver Response Time to Midblock Crossing Pedestrians

2018· article· en· W2795536980 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Ryan Toxopeus, Shady Attalla, Sam Kodsi, Michele Oliver

Bibliographic record

VenueSAE technical papers on CD-ROM/SAE technical paper series · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic and Road Safety
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaOntario Centres of Excellence
KeywordsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Vehicle-pedestrian collisions account for 15% of fatal crashes in the USA, and there has been a twelve percent increase in fatal crashes in the USA from 2006 to 2015. Although research exists on the response time of drivers responding to pedestrian path intrusions, data on the response time of through drivers to jaywalking pedestrians crossing from the far side of the road has not been determined. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to quantify Driver Response Time (DRT) to a pedestrian that intrudes perpendicularly into the path of a vehicle from the far curb (adjacent to oncoming traffic). 50 (NFemale = 25; NMale = 25) licensed volunteer drivers took part in a study at the University of Guelph Driving Research in Virtual Environments (DRiVE) lab using an Oktal complete vehicle driving simulator. After a brief practice drive to acclimatize to the virtual environment, participants completed the approximately 10 minute experiment drive during which the pedestrian hazard was presented. Only eight percent of drivers collided with the pedestrian with a mean time-to-impact of 4.35 seconds. There were no gender differences in terms of DRT or crash rate.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
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)0.0080.002

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations8
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSAE technical papers on CD-ROM/SAE technical paper seriesSame topicTraffic and Road SafetyFrench-language works237,207