MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4225857762 · doi:10.32920/26871316

Analysis of Pedestrian Stress Level Using GSR Sensor in Virtual Immersive Reality

2024· preprint· en· W4225857762 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Mahwish Mudassar

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEvacuation and Crowd Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPedestrianStress (linguistics)Virtual realityArousalMeasure (data warehouse)Computer scienceSimulationPsychologyHuman–computer interactionEngineeringSocial psychologyTransport engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>Level of emotional arousal of one's body changes in response to external stimuli in an environment. Given the risks involved while crossing streets, particularly at unsignalized mid-block crosswalks, one can expect a change in the stress level of pedestrians. In this study, we investigate the levels and changes in pedestrian stress, under different road crossing scenarios in immersive virtual reality. To measure stress level of pedestrians, we used Galvanic Skin Response (GSR) sensors. To collect the required data for the model, Virtual Immersive Reality Environment (VIRE) tool is used, which enables us to measure participants' stress levels in a controlled environment. The results suggested that the density of vehicles has a positive effect, meaning as the density of vehicles increases, so does the stress level for pedestrians. It was noted that younger pedestrians have a lower amount of stress when crossing as compared to older pedestrians which have higher amounts of stress. Geometric variables have an impact on the stress level of pedestrians. The greater the number of lanes the greater the observed stress, which is due to the crossing distance increasing, while the walking speed remains the same.</p>

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 score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score0.922

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEvacuation and Crowd DynamicsFrench-language works237,207