Synthesising the Existing Literature on the Market Acceptance of Autonomous Vehicles and the External Underlying Factors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, the level of acceptance of autonomous vehicles (AVs) has changed with the advent of new sensor technologies and the proportional increase in market perception of these vehicles. Our study provides an overview of the relevant existing studies in order to consolidate current knowledge and pave the way for future studies in this area. The paper first reviews studies investigating the market acceptance of AVs. We identify the nonbehavioural factors that account for the level of acceptance and examine these in detail by cross-referencing the results of relevant papers published between 2014 and 2021 to reach a consensus on the perceived benefits and concerns. The findings showed that previous studies have found legal liability, safety, privacy, security, traffic conditions, and cost to be key external factors influencing the acceptance or rejection of AVs, and that the upsides of adopting AVs in regard to improving traffic conditions and safety outweigh the risks identified in relation to these areas. This resulted in an overall weighted average of 65% market acceptance of AVs among the 11,057 people surveyed in this regard. However, the remaining respondents were not very favourably disposed towards adopting AVs because of unresolved issues related to data privacy, security breaches, and legal liability in the event of accidents. In addition, our evaluation showed that the worldwide market purchasing power for an AV, based on 2022 prices, is around $38k, which is significantly below the current anticipated price of $100k.
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 | 0.011 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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".