MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399995429 · doi:10.1109/thms.2024.3408841

Modeling Brake Perception Response Time in On-Road and Roadside Hazards Using an Integrated Cognitive Architecture

2024· article· en· W4399995429 on OpenAlexaff
Umair Rehman, Shi Cao, Carolyn MacGregor

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSafety Warnings and Signage
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBrakeCognitive architecturePerceptionCognitionArchitectureAutomotive engineeringResponse timeComputer scienceEngineeringPsychologyNeuroscienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, we used a computational cognitive architecture called queuing network–adaptive control of thought rational–situation awareness (QN–ACTR–SA) to model and simulate the brake perception response time (BPRT) to visual roadway hazards. The model incorporates an integrated driver model to simulate human driving behavior and uses a dynamic visual sampling model to simulate how drivers allocate their attention. We validated the model by comparing its results to empirical data from human participants who encountered on-road and roadside hazards in a simulated driving environment. The results showed that BPRT was shorter for on-road hazards compared to roadside hazards and that the overall model fitness had a mean absolute percentage error of 9.4% and a root mean squared error of 0.13 s. The modeling results demonstrated that QN–ACTR–SA could effectively simulate BPRT to both on-road and roadside hazards and capture the difference between the two contrasting conditions.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.083

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.308 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Human-Machine SystemsSame topicSafety Warnings and SignageFrench-language works237,207