Fatigue Driving Prediction on Commercial Dangerous Goods Truck Using Location Data: The Relationship between Fatigue Driving and Driving Environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The approaches monitoring fatigue driving are studied because of the fact that traffic accidents caused by fatigue driving often have fatal consequences. This paper proposes a new approach to predict driving fatigue using location data of commercial dangerous goods truck (CDT) and driver’s yawn data. The proposed location data are from an existing dataset of a transportation company that was collected from 166 vehicles and drivers in an actual driving environment. Six different categories of the predictor set are considered as fatigue-related indexes including travel time, day of week, road type, continuous driving time, average velocity, and overall mileage. The driver’s yawn data are used as a proxy for ground truth for the classification algorithm. From the six different categories of the predictor set, we obtain a set of 17 predictor variables to train logistic regression, neural network, and random forest classifiers. Then, we evaluate the predictive performance of the classifiers based on three indexes: accuracy, F1-measure, and area under the ROC curve (AUROC). The results show that the random forest is more suitable for predicting fatigue driving using location data according to its best accuracy (74.18%), F1-measure (62.02%), and AUROC (0.8059). Finally, we analyze the relationship between fatigue driving and driving environment according to variable importance described by random forest. In summary, our results obviously exhibit the potential of location data for reducing the accident rate caused by fatigue driving in practice.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".