Attitudes toward Applying Facial Recognition Technology for Red-Light Running by E-Bikers: A Case Study in Fuzhou, China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".