Exploring the Relationships between Subjective Evaluations and Objective Metrics of Vehicle Dynamic Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explored the relationships between subjective evaluations and objective metrics of vehicle dynamic performance. First, a real vehicle test was performed to measure the acceleration performance under different conditions, and participants’ subjective evaluations of the acceleration performance were investigated. Second, correlation analysis was conducted to explore relationships between each subjective evaluation and its corresponding objective metric as well as between the overall subjective evaluation and three individual subjective evaluations. Finally, an overall subjective evaluation model related to the three objective metrics was established based on the Probabilistic Neural Network (PNN). The analysis results demonstrated that the correlation coefficients of the three groups of data were greater than 0.5 and that each subjective evaluation was significantly correlated with its corresponding objective metric. The individual subjective evaluation of the climbing acceleration performance had the largest effect on the overall subjective evaluation, with a correlation coefficient of 0.47. The established overall subjective evaluation model was relatively reliable, with a prediction accuracy of 90%. This study furthered the existing knowledge of the methods for evaluating vehicle dynamic performance. The proposed overall subjective evaluation model improves the reliability of vehicle dynamic evaluations and offers a theoretical basis for vehicle manufacturers to improve automobile performance.
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 | 0.005 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".