MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2890047111 · doi:10.1145/3239092.3265965

The Impact of Advanced Vehicle Technologies on Older Driver Safety

2018· article· en· W2890047111 on OpenAlexaff
Andrea D Furlan, Brenda Vrkljan, Hana H. Abbas, Jessica Babineau, Jennifer L. Campos, Shabnam Haghzare, Tara Kajaks, Maggie Tiong, Maria Vo, Martin Lavallière

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOlder Adults Driving Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaUniversité du Québec à ChicoutimiUniversity of TorontoMcMaster UniversityToronto Rehabilitation Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorkloadUsabilityComputer scienceApplied psychologyHuman factors and ergonomicsInclusion (mineral)Advanced driver assistance systemsOutcome (game theory)Driving simulationRisk analysis (engineering)PsychologyPoison controlHuman–computer interactionSimulationMedicineArtificial intelligenceSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Advanced vehicle technologies (AVTs) have the potential to modify an older driver's behind-the-wheel performance by compensating for age and/or health-related changes that can negatively impact their ability to operate a motor vehicle. However, the safety implications of these rapidly evolving technologies are not well understood. A scoping review was conducted to understand the current state of research on AVTs with a particular focus on subjective outcome measures specific to older drivers. Sixteen articles met the inclusion criteria for this scoping review. The methods used to address subjective outcomes across studies were summarized. Seven main subjective outcomes were identified: trust, functionality, satisfaction, usability, workload, acceptability, and usefulness. The results highlight inconsistencies in the research with defining these concepts. Consequently, there is an identified need for a more rigorous classification system and consistent application and interpretation of subjective measures with regard to AVTs.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.049
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.049
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.395 · 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicOlder Adults Driving StudiesFrench-language works237,207