A Driving Simulation to Analysis and Quantitative Comparison of Driving Behavior of Guide Signs at Intersections
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Guide signs are an important source for drivers to obtain road information. However, the evaluation methods for the effectiveness of guide signs are not unified. The quantitative model for evaluating guide signs needs to be constructed to unify the current system of guide signs. This study aims to take the commonly used guide signs in China as the research object to explore the evaluation method of guide signs at intersections. Eight kinds of guide signs were designed and made based on the common layout (layout 1 and layout 2) and the amount of information on signs (3–6). Thirty-four drivers were recruited to organize a driving simulation based on the visual cognitive tasks. Drivers’ legibility time and driver behavior were obtained by using the driving simulator and E-Prime program. A comprehensive quantitative evaluation model of guide signs was established based on the factor analysis method and grey correlation analysis method from the perspective of safe driving. The results show that there is no significant difference in the SD of speed and the SD of acceleration under the influence of various guide signs. The average vehicle speed and acceleration decrease, and the lateral offset distance of the vehicle increases with the amount of information on guide signs increasing. The quantitative evaluation results of guide signs show that the visual security decreases with the increase of the amount of information on guide signs. And layout 2 has better performance than layout 1 when the amount of information on guide signs is the same. This study not only explores the change rule of driving behavior under the influence of guide signs, but also provides a reference for the selection of guide signs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".