MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3117279376 · doi:10.3791/61408

Tactile Vibrating Toolkit and Driving Simulation Platform for Driving-Related Research

2020· article· en· W3117279376 on OpenAlexaff
Ao Zhu, Annebella Tsz Ho Choi, Ko-Hsuan Ma, Shi Cao, Han Yao, Jian Wu, Jwu‐Sheng Hu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Visualized Experiments · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic control and management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDriving simulationComputer scienceHuman–computer interactionDriving simulatorSimulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Collision warning system plays a key role in the prevention of driving distractions and drowsy driving. Previous studies have proven the advantages of tactile warnings in reducing driver's brake response time. At the same time, tactile warnings have been proved effective in take-over request (TOR) for partially autonomous vehicles. How the performance of tactile warnings can be optimized is an ongoing hot research topic in this field. Thus, the presented low-cost driving simulation software and methods are introduced to attract more researchers to take part in the investigation. The presented protocol has been divided into five sections: 1) participants, 2) driving simulation software configuration, 3) driving simulator preparation, 4) vibrating toolkit configuration and preparation, and 5) conducting the experiment. In the exemplar study, participants wore the tactile vibrating toolkit and performed an established car-following task using the customized driving simulation software. The front vehicle braked intermittently, and vibrating warnings were delivered whenever the front vehicle was braking. Participants were instructed to respond as quickly as possible to the sudden brakes of the front vehicle. Driving dynamics, such as the brake response time and brake response rate, were recorded by the simulation software for data analysis. The presented protocol offers insight into the exploration of the effectiveness of tactile warnings on different body locations. In addition to the car-following task that is demonstrated in the exemplar experiment, this protocol also provides options to apply other paradigms to the driving simulation studies by making simple software configuration without any code development. However, it is important to note that due to its affordable price, the driving simulation software and hardware introduced here may not be able to fully compete with other high-fidelity commercial driving simulators. Nevertheless, this protocol can act as an affordable and user-friendly alternative to the general high-fidelity commercial driving simulators.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.060
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.356 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Visualized ExperimentsSame topicTraffic control and managementFrench-language works237,207