Studying Driving Behavior on Horizontal Curves using Naturalistic Driving Study Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many studies have been conducted to develop models to predict speed and driver comfort thresholds on horizontal curves, and to evaluate design consistency. The approaches used to develop these models differ from one another in data collection, data processing, assumptions, and analysis. However, some issues might be associated with the data collection that can affect the reliability of collected data and developed models. In addition, analysis of speed behavior on the assumption that vehicles traverse horizontal curves at a constant speed is far from actual driving behavior. Using the Naturalistic Driving Study (NDS) database can help overcome problems associated with data collection. This paper aimed at using NDS data to investigate driving behavior on horizontal curves in terms of speed, longitudinal acceleration, and comfort threshold. The NDS data were valuable in providing clear insight on drivers’ behavior during daytime and favorable weather conditions. A methodology was developed to evaluate driver behavior and was coded in Matlab. Sensitivity analysis was performed to recommend values for the parameters that can affect the output. Analysis of the drivers’ speed behavior and comfort threshold highlighted several issues that describe how drivers traverse horizontal curves that need to be considered in horizontal curve design and consistency evaluation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".