MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4362721360 · doi:10.4271/2023-01-0837

Comparing Visual Fixations between Initially Stopped and In-motion Turn Across Path Hazards

2023· article· en· W4362721360 on OpenAlexaff
Brooklin Caren, Erika Ziraldo, Michele Oliver

Bibliographic record

VenueSAE technical papers on CD-ROM/SAE technical paper series · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic and Road Safety
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHazardProportional hazards modelHazard ratioFixation (population genetics)SimulationComputer scienceAudiologyPsychologyArtificial intelligenceStatisticsMathematicsMedicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Collisions involving turn-across-path hazards are responsible for a disproportionate number of injuries and fatalities compared to collisions with other orientations. Previous investigations of turn-across-path hazards have found conflicting results regarding hazard detection and response behaviour of drivers, particularly for hazards with different onset conditions. Typically, hazards with abrupt onsets should attract attention more readily, however, the opposite trend for response times has been observed when the abrupt onset is a rapid change in speed, rather than a sudden appearance. This study compared two left-turn-across path hazards with different onsets. The abrupt onset hazard was an initially stopped vehicle that quickly accelerated into the participant drivers’ path, while the gradual onset hazard was already in motion as the participant driver approached. Visual fixations were compared between the two onset types to determine if the sudden speed change was capturing attention as quickly as the already in-motion hazard, or if drivers were responding faster to the initially in-motion hazard for another reason. 88 participants completed the experiment in a full vehicle driving simulator while donning eye tracking glasses. Both response time and time-to-first fixation were shorter for drivers responding to the initially in-motion hazard when compared to the initially stopped hazard. There was no significant difference in total fixation duration between the onset conditions. The results indicate that despite the sudden onset behaviour, drivers were attending to the initially stopped hazard later. Additionally, for both hazard onsets time to first fixation duration was significantly, positively correlated with driver response time, while total fixation duration was significantly, negatively correlated. These differences in fixations provide evidence to include targeted instruction to address recognition of and responses to hazards with different onset conditions during driver training, and to include hazard onset behaviour as a consideration when evaluating the avoidability of collisions involving left-turning 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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
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)0.0060.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSAE technical papers on CD-ROM/SAE technical paper series→Same topicTraffic and Road Safety→French-language works237,207→