Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32934442›Full record

ReviewJournal of cleaner production2020

Mind the gap: Developments in autonomous driving research and the sustainability challenge.

Luca Mora, Xinyi Wu, Anastasia Panori

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of cleaner production, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Luca MoraThe Business School, Edinburgh Napier University, Edinburgh, EH14 1DJ, United Kingdom.
Xinyi WuSchool of Social and Political Science, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, EH8 9LD, United Kingdom.
Anastasia PanoriWhite Research, Brussels, 1060, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Scientific knowledge on autonomous-driving technology is expanding at a faster-than-ever pace. As a result, the likelihood of incurring information overload is particularly notable for researchers, who can struggle to overcome the gap between information processing requirements and information processing capacity. We address this issue by adopting a multi-granulation approach to latent knowledge discovery and synthesis in large-scale research domains. The proposed methodology combines citation-based community detection methods and topic modelling techniques to give a concise but comprehensive overview of how the autonomous vehicle (AV) research field is conceptually structured. Thirteen core thematic areas are extracted and presented by mining the large data-rich environments resulting from 50 years of AV research. The analysis demonstrates that this research field is strongly oriented towards examining the technological developments needed to enable the widespread rollout of AVs, whereas it largely overlooks the wide-ranging sustainability implications of this sociotechnical transition. On account of these findings, we call for a broader engagement of AV researchers with the sustainability concept and we invite them to increase their commitment to conducting systematic investigations into the sustainability of AV deployment. Sustainability research is urgently required to produce an evidence-based understanding of what new sociotechnical arrangements are needed to ensure that the systemic technological change introduced by AV-based transport systems can fulfill societal functions while meeting the urgent need for more sustainable transport solutions.

Indexed as

Autonomous vehicleKnowledge gapResearch developmentsSustainabilityText miningTopic modelling

Identifiers

PMID32934442
PMCPMC7484706

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.