MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390533271 · doi:10.1109/tiv.2024.3349466

Retracted: Integrating Large Language Models and Metaverse in Autonomous Racing: An Education-Oriented Perspective

2024· article· en· W4390533271 on OpenAlexaff
Bai Li, Tian’ao Xu, Xinyuan Li, Yaodong Cui, Xuepeng Bian, Siyu Teng, Siji Ma, Lili Fan, Yonglin Tian, Fei‐Yue Wang

Post-publication record

OpenAlex flags this work as retracted, but it carries no matching Retraction Watch record in this frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI in Service Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsMetaverseContext (archaeology)AutonomyPerspective (graphical)Competition (biology)SociologyComputer scienceKnowledge managementPublic relationsVirtual realityHuman–computer interactionPolitical scienceArtificial intelligenceEcologyHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This letter is the third report from a series of IEEE TIV's decentralized and hybrid workshops (DHWs) on intelligent vehicles for education (IV4E). Autonomous racing serves as a vital platform for nurturing engineering talents among university students, contributing to the development of skills essential for the intelligent vehicle industry. This letter investigates how recent emerging techniques, such as large language models (LLMs) and the Metaverse, can contribute to organizing IV4E-oriented autonomous racing events. Among these DHWs, scholars from diverse fields have collectively explored the integration of LLMs and the Metaverse into autonomous racing for educational purposes. The discussions emphasize the role of Metaverse in creating dynamic and immersive training virtual reality platforms and the role of LLMs in enhancing race commentary and the spectator experience. Within this context, the Metaverse introduces complex scenarios to the racetrack, maintaining suspense about the winning team until a race's final moment. This dynamic feature excites the race and motivates the participating teams to intensify their competition efforts. LLMs facilitate personalized commentary, inspiring spectators to become future participants in these races. Our DHWs highlighted a future in which technology, autonomy, and education intersect, fostering inclusive, educational, and engaging autonomous racing events.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.006
Scholarly communication0.0080.012
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations15
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Intelligent VehiclesSame topicAI in Service InteractionsFrench-language works237,207