Retraction Notice: From Formula One to Autonomous One: History, Achievements, and Future Perspectives
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This letter is the first report from a series of IEEE TIV's Decentralized and Hybrid Workshops (DHWs) on Intelligent Vehicles for Education (IV4E). The role of intelligent vehicles in promoting education for all ages through autonomous racing was discussed during a recent DHW. Over the past decade, autonomous racing has emerged due to advancements in self-driving technologies. While still focused on extreme speed, autonomous racing differs from conventional automobile racing in its development philosophy, as human drivers are no longer involved. The absence of human drivers should be regarded as a new chance to increase competitiveness and entertainment value. This letter discusses opportunities to promote education-oriented autonomous racing. Recall that the flagship car race is Formula 1, where “formula” denotes technical restrictions that should be satisfied strictly. We name the new race series Autonomous 1 or A1, leveraging the power of autonomous intelligence in education. The achievements made in Formula 1 and typical autonomous races are reviewed, followed by discussions about A1’s future perspectives. Specifically, A1 needs to maintain race consistency, update rules, and provide personalized commentary to support all-age education.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it