Preliminary Safety Evaluation of Self-Driving, Low-Speed Shuttle
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although fully implemented autonomous vehicles (AVs) seem to be on the cusp of reality, standard evaluation and testing procedures still are lacking. This study conducted a preliminary evaluation of the technical feasibility, safety, and reliability of using AV technology, in particular a low-speed, self-driving shuttle known as Olli. The study designed a set of 12 testing scenarios and performed experiments to evaluate the operational capabilities, safety, and reliability of the self-driving shuttle on the University at Buffalo’s Connected and Automated Vehicles (CAVs) proving grounds. The scenarios were designed to evaluate the vehicle’s performance while simulating the operational scenarios that the shuttle would encounter when deployed in the real world at a medical and educational campus in downtown Buffalo, New York. Preliminary results provide insight into the operational characteristics of the self-driving shuttle; its stopping distance behavior; its ability to detect and safely react to obstacles, conflicts, and other hazards on the road; its car-following behavior; and the impact of inclement weather conditions on performance.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it