Navigating the Handover: Reviewing Takeover Requests in Level 3 Autonomous Vehicles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Autonomous vehicles (AVs) represent a transformative advance in automotive technology, promising increased safety and efficiency by reducing human error. However, integrating human factors remains a critical challenge, especially during takeover scenarios where the human driver must re-assume control of the vehicle. This review paper focuses on theengineering and human-centred design of takeover requests (TORs) within Level 3 autonomous vehicles, emphasizing the importance of seamless transitions between automated driving and manual control. We explore the concept of the Operational Design Domain (ODD), which dictates the specific conditions under which an AV may safely operate, and contextualize its role. Through a comprehensive analysis, we highlight how monitoring both the internal and external environment, and improving human-machine interfaces through the design of takeover requests (TOR), play pivotal roles in ensuring that transitions are safe and efficient. We argue for the necessity of integrating detailed human factors and ergonomic considerations to foster a human-centred approach in AV design. We aim to establish a symbiotic relationship between human drivers and autonomous systems, ensuring that AVs not only function optimally within their designated ODD, but also maintain high safety standards during critical takeover moments.
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 | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".