Driving Fatigue Prediction Model considering Schedule and Circadian Rhythm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Driver fatigue level was considered an accumulated result contributed by circadian rhythms, hours of sleep before driving, driving duration, and break time during driving. This article presents an investigation into the regression model between driver fatigue level and the above four time-related variables. With the cooperation of one commercial transportation company, a Naturalistic Driving Study (NDS) was conducted, and NDS data from thirty-four middle-aged drivers were selected for analysis. With regard to the circadian rhythms, commercial drivers operated the vehicle and started driving at around 09:00, 14:00, and 21:00, respectively. Participants’ time of sleep before driving is also surveyed, and a range from 4 to 7 hours was selected. The commercial driving route was the same for all participants. After getting the fatigue level of all participants using the Karolinska Sleepiness Scale (KSS), the discrete KSS data were converted into consecutive value, and curve fitting methods were adopted for modeling. In addition, a linear regression model was proposed to represent the relationship between accumulated fatigue level and the four time-related variables. Finally, the prediction model was verified by the driving performance measurement: standard deviation of lateral position. The results demonstrated that fatigue prediction results are significantly relevant to driving performance. In conclusion, the fatigue prediction model proposed in this study could be implemented to predict the risk driving period and the maximum consecutive driving time once the driving schedule is determined, and the fatigue driving behavior could be avoided or alleviated by optimizing the driving and break schedule.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".