MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4224310798 · doi:10.1155/2022/8005601

Modeling Analysis of Improved Minimum Safe Following Distance under Internet of Vehicles

2022· article· en· W4224310798 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Qiang Luo, Meining Ling, Xiaodong Zang, Cong Zhai, Liming Shao, Junheng Yang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Transportation · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic control and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGuangzhou University
KeywordsThe InternetKey (lock)Sensitivity (control systems)Computer scienceTransport engineeringAutomotive engineeringSimulationArtificial neural networkRisk analysis (engineering)EngineeringComputer securityMachine learningBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The development of the Internet of vehicles technology can improve the communication between vehicles, thereby changing the driving behavior of drivers. Therefore, the traditional safe-following model cannot accurately describe the driving behavior and needs to be improved accordingly. First, two key parameters (i.e., drivers’ reaction sensitivity and road friction coefficient) are obtained through a comprehensive comparative analysis of influencing factors on the Internet of vehicles environment. And the calculation methods of these two parameters are proposed by using the multilevel comprehensive weighted evaluation method and the BP neural network. Then, these two key parameters are used to improve the traditional minimum safety distance model for adapting to driving behavior under the Internet of vehicles environment. Finally, through setting up simulation experiments and comparative analysis, the relationship between different influencing factors and the minimum safe following distance is obtained, and the influence degree of different influencing factors is sorted. The most important factor affecting car-following safety is the drivers’ characteristics. It can provide strong theoretical support for the safe driving assistance system of vehicles.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.251
Threshold uncertainty score0.296

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced TransportationSame topicTraffic control and managementFrench-language works237,207