ArticleFrontiers in psychology2024
Crowd-counting technology within the Smart City context: understanding, trust, and acceptance.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Enhancing Understanding and Acceptance of Equipment Localization: Mixed Methods Study With Clinic Staff and Potential Patients.JMIR human factors · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In city centers worldwide, including the UNESCO World Heritage Site of Bamberg's old town in Germany, alleviating pedestrian overcrowding is a pressing concern. Leveraging crowd-counting technologies with real-time data collection offers promising solutions, yet poses challenges regarding data privacy and informed consent. This preregistered study examines public response to a Smart City Bamberg project aimed at addressing pedestrian congestion through crowd-counting methods. We investigate informed consent by looking at understanding and acceptance of the project, as well as influencing factors, such as effectiveness of project explanation and trust. Through a three-stage study comprising exploratory interviews, a field study, and an online study, we reveal that the focus of project explanations significantly impacts understanding: Functional explanations, emphasizing project purpose, enhance comprehension compared to mechanistic explanations detailing project components. Additionally, project trust positively correlates with acceptance. Notably, understanding impacts acceptance through increased project trust. These findings underscore the importance of fostering understanding to garner public acceptance of crowd-counting projects. It is important, especially in the case of projects which aim to improve quality of life while also prioritizing robust data protection, that decisions regarding informed consent are grounded in comprehension rather than on preconceived biases against data sharing. Efforts should prioritize effective explanations to bolster project trust and consequently, promote acceptance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.