Investigating the Effect of Urban New Technologies on the Iranian Lorry Drivers’ Behavior
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most accidents are directly related to driving offenses, and drivers who commit more offenses are more prone to accidents. Therefore, reducing driving offenses can reduce accidents. In other words, the recognition of common driving offenses among heavy vehicle (truck) drivers and the effective factors in directing them to reduce driving offenses can consequently reduce the frequency and severity of accidents. It seems that there is a necessity for in-depth studies to carry out research on this topic. The main objective of this study is to identify and evaluate important factors affecting lorry drivers committing traffic offenses. To achieve the goals, the required information was categorized into six categories: traffic tonnage, not fastening the seatbelt, speeding, technical defect, talking on cell phone, and lacking towing worksheet; these factors are known as dependent variables. Also, its influencing factors—in the group of driver characteristics, vehicle, and mileage—were obtained by using a demographic questionnaire, Driving Behavior Questionnaire (DBQ), and interviews with 420 drivers over 60 days at Tehran Terminal. After correcting incomplete questionnaires, 351 drivers’ information was used for statistical analysis. The statistical analysis of data using a multivariate logistic regression model showed that drivers loading and unloading five or six times per month are less likely to commit overloading than drivers loading and unloading more than 12 times per month. The results also show that the distracted drivers with less slip behavior are less likely to commit unauthorized speed offenses and 85.4% are less likely to commit this violation. Finally, the statistical analysis showed that drivers with aggressive driving behavior were more likely to commit a lack of towing worksheet offenses.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".