MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3094973372 · doi:10.1109/ojvt.2020.3036582

A Review of Driving Simulation Technology and Applications

2020· review· en· W3094973372 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Open Journal of Vehicular Technology · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAutonomous Vehicle Technology and Safety
Canadian institutionsToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of TorontoMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChassisPowertrainComputer scienceDriving simulatorSimulationAutomotive engineeringPerceptionHuman–computer interactionSystems engineeringControl engineeringEngineeringAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Driving simulation has become a very useful tool for vehicle design and research in industry and educational institutes. This paper provides a review of driving simulator components, including the vehicle dynamics model, the motion system, and the virtual environment, and how they interact with the human perceptual system in order to create the illusion of the driving. In addition, a sample of current state-of-the-art vehicle simulators and algorithms are described. Finally, current applications are discussed, such as driver-centered studies, chassis and powertrain design, and autonomous systems development.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.974
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.294 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it