Effectiveness Analysis on Human-Machine Information Interaction of Intelligent Highway
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Different human-machine collaboration modes and driving simulation tests with the orthogonal method considered are designed for a series of typical intelligent highway landscapes. The feedback of drivers under different interaction modes is evaluated through NASA-LTX questionnaire, driving simulator, eye tracker, and electroencephalograph (EEG). This optimal interaction mode (including voice form, broadcasting timing, and frequency) of each driving assistance scene in CVI (Cooperative Vehicle Infrastructure) environment under the conditions of high and low traffic is determined from subjective and objective perspectives. In accordance with feedback of these subjects on each set scene, the voice information structure of each assistance mode plays the most important role on drivers followed by the broadcasting timing and frequency. These broadcasts which provide good effects include scenarios such as various assistance scenes at curves and an early warning timing at a long-distance trip as well as a high early warning frequency; in addition, as for an exit-tip assistance scenario, a voice mode assistance is preferred; and for various speed assistance scenes, the beep mode is better. Furthermore, it is found that, at a higher traffic level but a short-distance trip, an early warning timing is favored generally for various scenes while under a low traffic level, a long-distance early warning timing is better.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".