Prevalence of Engagement in Single versus Multiple Types of Secondary Tasks: Results from the Naturalistic Engagement in Secondary Task (NEST) Dataset
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigated engagement in single vs. multiple types of secondary tasks in distraction-affected, safety-critical events (SCEs), i.e., crashes/near-crashes, and baselines reported in the Naturalistic Engagement in Secondary Tasks (NEST) dataset. NEST was created from Second Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP2) data for studying distractions in detail. Early descriptive analysis on NEST found that most distraction-affected SCE and baseline epochs (10 s long) include more than one type of secondary task, suggesting that a considerable number of drivers may be engaging in multiple secondary activities within a relatively short time frame, potentially being exposed to increased demands brought on by multi-tasking and task-switching. We conducted inferential statistics on NEST focusing on engagement in single vs. multiple types of tasks across SCEs and baselines. A logit model was built to compare the odds of engaging in single vs. multiple types of tasks with the following predictors: event type (SCE, baseline), environmental demand, GPS speed, and driver age. The last three predictors were included to capture the driving demands experienced, which may have impacted drivers’ task engagement behavior. Odds of engagement in multiple types of secondary tasks was higher in SCEs than baselines. Furthermore, with marginal statistical significance, drivers 65 years and over were less likely to engage in multiple types of secondary tasks than younger drivers. Overall, engagement in multiple secondary task types is more prevalent in SCEs. Most crash risk studies to date have reported the effects associated with one type of secondary task. However, it appears that these effects may be confounded by the presence of other secondary tasks.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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.
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".