Impact of Cognitive Distractions on Drivers’ Hazardous Event Anticipation and Mitigation Behavior in Vehicle–Bicycle Conflict Situations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Vehicle–bicycle collisions are increasing alarmingly. A recent study shows that cognitively distracted drivers who are glancing on the forward roadway are also less likely to glance toward areas for potential vehicle–bicyclist conflicts. But this study did not determine whether cognitively distracted drivers who did glance toward the appropriate area were as likely to process the information as drivers who were not cognitively distracted. Evidence that drivers who were cognitively distracted and glanced toward the bicyclist were not as likely to process the information could be inferred either from shorter fixations in the area where a bicyclist could appear or from smaller reductions in the speed of their vehicle to mitigate a potential conflict. This study intends to add to previous results by examining only glance and vehicle behaviors of participants who glance toward the latent hazardous events involving bicyclists. Specifically, the durations of the glances toward the latent hazardous events of participants who are and are not cognitively distracted are compared as well as their velocity while approaching the potential strike zones. Two groups of 20 participants (one distracted, one not distracted) each drove through seven scenarios on a fixed-based driving simulator while their eye movements were continuously tracked using an eye tracker. Analysis of the participants’ longest glance duration toward the latent hazardous events indicated that distracted drivers made shorter glances toward the latent hazardous events when compared with their non-distracted counterparts. However, there was no difference in vehicle velocity between distracted and non-distracted drivers near the potential strike zones.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".