MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2928216815 · doi:10.4271/2019-01-1010

Automated Vehicle Disengagement Reaction Time Compared to Human Brake Reaction Time in Both Automobile and Motorcycle Operation

2019· article· en· W2928216815 on OpenAlexaff
Jeffrey Dinges, Nicholas J. Durisek

Bibliographic record

VenueSAE technical papers on CD-ROM/SAE technical paper series · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHuman-Automation Interaction and Safety
Canadian institutionsDynamic Systems Analysis (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDisengagement theoryBrakeAutomotive engineeringComputer scienceAeronauticsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Autonomous Vehicle Disengagement Reports have been published by the California Department of Motor Vehicles since 2015. The State of California autonomous vehicle testing regulations require every manufacturer authorized to test autonomous vehicles on public roads to submit an annual report summarizing disengagements. In early versions of the annual report, automated vehicle manufacturers were required to provide the time that it took for a human driver to take manual control of the vehicle when reporting vehicle disengagements. This study analyzes reported automated vehicle disengagement reaction times from 2015 through 2017 for various manufacturers that provided information to the California Department of Motor Vehicles while operating vehicles in autonomous mode. This study compares the reported automated vehicle operation disengagement reaction time to field literature in testing and experimentation on human brake reaction times for both automobile and motorcycle operation.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.298 · 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

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSAE technical papers on CD-ROM/SAE technical paper seriesSame topicHuman-Automation Interaction and SafetyFrench-language works237,207