Analysis of Factors Affecting a Driver’s Driving Speed Selection in Low Illumination
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To better understand a driver’s driving speed selection behaviour in low illumination, a self-designed questionnaire was applied to investigate driving ability in low illumination, and the influencing factors of low-illumination driving speed selection behaviour were discussed from the driver’s perspective. The reliability and validity of 243 questionnaires were tested, and multiple linear regression was used to analyse the comprehensive influence of demographic variables, driving speed in a low-illumination environment with street lights and driving ability on speed selection behaviour in low illumination without street lights. Pearson’s correlation test showed that there was no correlation among age, education, accidents in the past 3 years, and speed selection behaviour in low illumination, but gender, driving experience, number of night-driving days per week, and average annual mileage were significantly correlated with speed selection behaviour. In a low-illumination environment, driving ability has a significant influence on a driver’s speed selection behaviour. Technical driving ability under low-illumination conditions of street lights has the greatest influence on speed selection behaviour on a road with a speed limit of 120 km/h (β = 0.51). Risk perception ability has a significant negative impact on speed selection behaviour on roads with speed limits of 80 km/h and 120 km/h (β = −0.25 and β = −0.34, respectively). Driving speed in night-driving environment with street lights also has a positive influence on speed selection behaviour in low illumination (β = 0.61; β = 0.28; β = 0.37).
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".