Drivers Still Have Limited Knowledge About Adaptive Cruise Control Even When They Own the System
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
Much of the existing research on drivers’ understanding of adaptive cruise control (ACC), a type of advanced driver assistance system, was conducted several years ago. Through an online survey, this study aimed to assess ACC knowledge among ACC owners and non-owners now that this system is more widely available. Along with knowledge of ACC features and limitations, demographic information, experience with technology, and experience with ACC (for owners) were also collected to investigate which factors predicted knowledge of ACC features and limitations. Results showed that owners today may have a better understanding of some of the main limitations of ACC compared with research conducted over 10 years ago. However, a large percentage of owners still had misperceptions about their ACC system. While owners had a slightly higher percentage of correct answers overall, they did not differ from non-owners in their knowledge of limitations. As this technology is becoming more common, even non-owners may be becoming aware of common limitations; owning and using ACC does not seem to result in a better system understanding. Higher income was associated with a higher percentage of correct responses on the ACC knowledge questionnaire for both owners and non-owners, and for non-owners, higher education level was also significantly associated with a higher percentage of correct responses. Future research should focus on developing training materials that are accessible to all drivers, so that drivers in lower education and income groups are also supported to understand how advanced driver assistance systems work and benefit from these technologies.
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 | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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