Predictive Model of Driver’s Perception of Vehicle Stability under Aerodynamic Excitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In vehicle development, a subjective evaluation of the vehicle’s behavior at high speeds is usually conducted by experienced drivers with the objective of assessing driving stability. To avoid late design changes, it is desirable to predict and resolve perceived instabilities early in the development phase. In this study, a mathematical model is developed from measurements during on-road tests to predict the driver’s ability to identify vehicle instabilities under excitations such as aerodynamic excitations. A vehicle is fitted with add-ons to create aerodynamic excitations and is driven by multiple drivers on a high-speed track. Drivers’ evaluation, responses, cabin motion, and crosswind conditions are recorded. The influence of yaw and roll rates, lateral acceleration, and steering angle at various frequency ranges when predicting the drivers’ evaluation of induced excitation is demonstrated. The drivers’ evaluation of vehicle behavior is influenced by driver-vehicle interactions. Excess rotational rates, defined as the part of rotational rates that are not the result of steering action, reduce the importance of steering as a predictor and improve the accuracy of the predictive model. The present model is compared with an earlier developed model derived from data from a driving simulator under preconditioned aerodynamic excitations.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".