MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3194531093 · doi:10.1155/2021/9922321

Comparing the Effect of Age, Gender, and Desired Speed on Car-Following Behavior by Using Driving Simulator

2021· article· en· W3194531093 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ehsan Ramezani-Khansari, Masoud Tabibi, Fereidoon Moghadas Nejad, Mahmoud Mesbah

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Transportation · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic control and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeadwayDriving simulatorSimulationSteady state (chemistry)Sensitivity (control systems)PsychologyEngineeringChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, the effect of age, gender, and desired speed (DS) factors on General Motors car-following (CF) behavior was investigated. DS was defined as the speed selected by the driver in free driving situation. A low-level driving simulator was used to collect data. The CF model for each driver was calibrated by genetic algorithm. Gender and DS were effective in CF behavior, while the age factor was not. The drivers’ sensitivity to the variables of speed and distance in the CF model increased with increasing the DS. The gender factor affected only the magnitude of deceleration which was higher in women. For further investigation, the effect of the desired speed on the time headway in the steady-state CF was also examined. DS factor was effective in steady-state CF behavior. As the DS increased, the time headway decreased. Examining CF threshold demonstrated that women maintained larger distance than men. Finally, it can be said that DS and gender would be more important than age to be considered in CF models.

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)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations20
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced TransportationSame topicTraffic control and managementFrench-language works237,207