MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W594102630

Simulated Lane Departure Warning System Reduces the Width of Lane that Drivers Use

2010· article· en· W594102630 on OpenAlexaff
Nadia Mullen, Michel Bédard, Julie Riendeau, Theodore J. Rosenthal

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in transportation studies · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHuman-Automation Interaction and Safety
Canadian institutionsLakehead University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRumbleDriving simulatorLane departure warning systemDistractionSimulationEnhanced Data Rates for GSM EvolutionLine (geometry)Poison controlWarning systemEngineeringComputer scienceTransport engineeringPsychologyTelecommunicationsMedicineMedical emergency
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper, from a special issue on driving simulator applications in research and clinical practice, reports on a study of a simulated lane departure warning system. These warning systems are designed to decrease the number of vehicle crashes that result from drivers unintentionally leaving the boundary of their lane (e.g., due to fatigue or distraction). The authors conducted a pilot validation study to examine whether drivers (n = 20) would respond to a simulated in-vehicle lane departure warning device in the simulated environment in a similar fashion to how drivers would respond in the real world. The drivers in the study (aged 18-28 years) completed a 20-minute rural drive in a STISIM Drive® simulator. The lane departure device provided auditory feedback (rumble strip sound) when the vehicle’s front left tire approached or crossed the center line, and when the front right tire approached or crossed the edge line at the side of the road. Results showed that the lane departure warning device decreased the number of edge line crossings during the simulated drive and the number of drivers who crossed the edge line. The use of the simulator also decreased the width of lane that drivers used. However, the device did not decrease center line crossings. Survey results also showed that experimental participants considered this type of device necessary in the real world, appropriate, and effective, and supported the idea of greater implementation. With this validation, the device can be used in additional studies in the areas of driver fatigue, impairment, and distraction.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.153
Threshold uncertainty score0.359

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.354 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in transportation studiesSame topicHuman-Automation Interaction and SafetyFrench-language works237,207