MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2945537935 · doi:10.22215/etd/2015-11206

An Eye-Tracking Evaluation of Driver Distraction and Road Signs

2015· dissertation· en· W2945537935 on OpenAlexaff
Stephanie Hurtado

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSafety Warnings and Signage
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDistractionSignageEye trackingTask (project management)Context (archaeology)Driving simulatorDistracted drivingComputer scienceApplied psychologyPsychologyEngineeringCognitive psychologySimulationAdvertisingBusinessComputer visionGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Driving is a complex task that requires auditory, visual, and tactile attention.It is difficult enough for drivers to handle the increasing number of distractions when they are in a familiar environment, but what happens when drivers are placed in a new environment?If we understood this issue, we could design tools to reduce driving hazards and minimize distractions.We address this gap by exploring drivers' behaviour when they encounter road signs from different countries.We conducted two eye-tracking studies with 50 participants.Participants' spent increased time looking at unfamiliar road signs.Misinterpretation occurred due to the influence of previous experience and many drivers drove at reduced speeds throughout to compensate for the anticipated cognitive load.We suggest developing context-aware in-vehicle systems that use web mapping services to present drivers with road signage information.Based on our results, we also provide four recommendations to improve driver safety.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Bench or experimentallow
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.003
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
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 integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.445
Teacher spread0.381 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designObservational · Bench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSafety Warnings and SignageFrench-language works237,207