Risk Assessment of Distracted Driving Behavior Based on Visual Stability Coefficient
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cell phone call operations during driving can lead to distraction and cause potential safety hazards. In order to quantitatively characterize the influence of cell phone call mode on the driver’s visual behavior in different traffic conditions and to analyze the risk level of distracted driving from the visual level, a distracted driving simulation test was carried out based on a driving simulator and eye tracker. The eye movement data of drivers during normal driving, hands-free call, and video call under two typical traffic conditions of free flow and congested flow on the urban expressway were collected. Firstly, four visual characteristics indicators that were highly sensitive to traffic conditions and driving states were selected in terms of visual field range, visual recognition, visual search, and visual load, which were the information entropy of fixation area (IEFA), saccade amplitude, peak-to-average ratio of saccade velocity (PARSV), and relative change intensity of pupil area (RCPA). Then, based on the improved CRITIC method, the visual stability coefficient (VSC) was constructed as a new indicator to comprehensively assess the risk level of the driving state, and the assessment criteria were divided. Finally, the grey correlation analysis method was introduced to verify the assessment effect of VSC. The results show that different cell phone call modes increased driving risk in both traffic conditions. Among them, the negative influence of video calls on driving safety was significantly higher than that of hands-free calls, with a significant decrease in VSC, and the drivers’ VSC in the free flow scenario was more sensitive to the impact of cell phone call operation, and the driving risk increased significantly during distracted driving. The VSC can quantitatively assess driving risk from the perspective of visual psychological safety and contributes to the development of corresponding early warning and control measures.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".