The effects of using taxi-hailing application on driving performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Driver distraction has become a major threat to the road safety, and the globally booming taxi-hailing application introduces new source of distraction to drivers. Although various in-vehicle information systems have been studied extensively, no documentation exists objectively measuring the extent to which interacting with taxi-hailing application during driving impacts drivers’ behavior. To fill this gap, a simulator-based study was conducted to synthetically compare the effects that different output modalities (visual, audio, and combined visual–audio) and input modalities (baseline, manual, and speech) imposed on the driving performance. The results show that the visual output introduced more negative effects on driving performance compared to audio output. In the combined output, visual component dominated the effects imposed on the longitudinal control and hazard detection; audio component only exacerbated the negative effects of visual component on the lateral control. Speech input modality was overall less detrimental to driving performance than manual input modality, especially reflected in the drivers’ quicker reaction to hazard events. The visual–manual interaction modality most severely impaired the hazard detecting ability, while also led to strong compensative behaviors. The audio–speech and visual–speech modality associated with more smooth lateral control and faster response to hazard events, respectively, compared to other modality. These results could be applied to improve the design of not only the taxi-hailing application but also other input–output balanced in-vehicle information systems.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".