MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200590247 · doi:10.3390/app12010211

Attitudes toward Applying Facial Recognition Technology for Red-Light Running by E-Bikers: A Case Study in Fuzhou, China

2021· article· en· W4200590247 on OpenAlexaff
Yanqun Yang, Danni Yin, Said M. Easa, Jiang Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Sciences · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicVideo Surveillance and Tracking Methods
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLicenseChinaTest (biology)PsychologyApplied psychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The application of facial recognition technology (FRT) can effectively reduce the red-light running behavior of e-bikers. However, the privacy issues involved in FRT have also attracted widespread attention from society. This research aims to explore the public and traffic police’s attitudes toward FRT to optimize the use and implementation of FRT. A structured questionnaire survey of 270 people and 94 traffic police in Fuzhou, China, was used. In the research, we use several methods to analyze the investigation data, including Mann–Whitney U test, Kruskal–Wallis test, and multiple correspondence analysis. The survey results indicate that the application of FRT has a significant effect on reducing red-light running behavior. The public’s educational level and driving license status are the most influential factors related to their attitudes to FRT (p < 0.001). Public members with these attributes show more supportive attitudes to FRT and more concerns about privacy invasion. There are significant differences between the public and traffic police in attitudes toward FRT (p < 0.001). Compared with the public, traffic police officers showed more supportive attitudes to FRT. This research contributes to promoting the application of FRT legitimately and alleviating people’s concerns about the technology.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.905
Threshold uncertainty score0.671

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.278 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied SciencesSame topicVideo Surveillance and Tracking MethodsFrench-language works237,207