MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3213420533 · doi:10.1145/3472307.3484182

What are Social Norms for Low-speed Autonomous Vehicle Navigation in Crowded Environments? An Online Survey

2021· preprint· en· W3213420533 on OpenAlexaff
Mahsa Golchoubian, Moojan Ghafurian, Nasser L. Azad, Kerstin Dautenhahn

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHuman-Automation Interaction and Safety
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSoftware deploymentCartComputer scienceVariety (cybernetics)PedestrianTransport engineeringHuman–computer interactionComputer securityEngineeringArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It has been suggested that autonomous vehicles can improve efficiency and safety of the transportation systems. While research in this area often focuses on autonomous vehicles which operate on roads, the deployment of low-speed, autonomous vehicles in unstructured, crowded environments has been studied less well and requires specific considerations regarding their interaction with pedestrians. For making the operation of these vehicles acceptable, their behaviour needs to be perceived as safe by both pedestrians and the passengers riding the vehicle. In this paper we conducted an online survey with 116 participants, to understand people’s preferences with respect to an autonomous golf cart’s behaviour in different interaction scenarios. We measured people’s self-reported perceived safety towards different behaviour of the cart in a variety of scenarios. Results suggested that despite the unstructured nature of the environment, the cart was expected to follow common traffic rules when interacting with a group of pedestrians.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.755
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.105
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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

Citations6
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHuman-Automation Interaction and SafetyFrench-language works237,207