MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2898511700 · doi:10.1139/juvs-2017-0027

Does length of ride, gender, or nationality affect willingness to ride in a driverless ambulance?

2018· article· en· W2898511700 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Stephen Rice, Scott R. Winter, Rian Mehta, Joseph R. Keebler, Bradley S. Baugh, Emily C. Anania, Mattie N. Milner

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Unmanned Vehicle Systems · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPsychology of Social Influence
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNationalityAffect (linguistics)MediationPsychologySocial psychologyApplied psychologyAdvertisingBusinessPolitical scienceImmigrationLawCommunication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Due to the frequent lack of ambulances and personnel, the purpose of this study was to examine consumers’ willingness to ride in an ambulance that was either driven by a human driver or completely automated (with no human driver) based on the gender of the participant and their nationality, either Indian or American. A two-study experimental design was utilized using over 1000 participants. In study 1, the length of the ride and the type of driver were manipulated, while in study 2, the length of the ride was manipulated across genders and nationality. Study 2 also collected affect measures to complete a mediation analysis. The findings indicate that consumers’ willingness to ride was significantly lower for longer rides when using the automated ambulance. There were significant interactions between nationality and gender and nationality, gender, and length of the ride. Affect was found to significantly mediate the relationship between willingness to ride and both nationality and gender. These findings are discussed in greater detail, along with recommendations for future research and limitations to the study.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.076
Threshold uncertainty score0.384

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.337 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations3
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Unmanned Vehicle SystemsSame topicPsychology of Social InfluenceFrench-language works237,207