Bibliographic record
Abstract
As a new, highly complex, and far‐reaching technology, autonomous driving can be associated with various fears and uncertainties. However, recent findings show that high trait anxiety can positively contribute to the intention to use (ITU) autonomous vehicles (AVs). An explanation for this is that the possibility of handing over one’s driving control to artificial intelligence (AI) is even more relieving for more anxious people. Our study aimed to test whether this explanation can be supported by investigating to what extent this relationship can be applied to buses in which control is handed over per se–in the conventional bus to a driver, and in the autonomous bus to the AI. We also analyzed how the fear of giving up control mediates the relationship between trait anxiety and ITU. In a quasi‐experimental study, 253 subjects were surveyed while riding an autonomous or conventional electric bus. The results confirmed a positive association between trait anxiety and ITU in the overall sample but not in the autonomous and conventional subsamples. Contrary to our assumptions, fear of giving up control served as a slightly suppressive but not significant mediator. The results were independent of whether control was handed over to a human driver in the conventional electric bus or to AI in the autonomous bus. Our study thus provides fundamental new insights into the acceptance of AVs and buses in general and opens the door for subsequent research based on these findings.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.005 |
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".