MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2334110094 · doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2012.03897.x

RESPONSE TO COMMENTARIES

2012· letter· en· W2334110094 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Flávio Pechansky, Aruna Chandran

Notice bibliographique

RevueAddiction · 2012
Typeletter
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesWorld Health Organization
Mots-clésLatin AmericansPsychological interventionEnforcementDeterrence theoryPoison controlSuicide preventionLaw enforcementPerceptionPublic healthOccupational safety and healthHuman factors and ergonomicsPsychologyInjury preventionCriminologySocial psychologyMedicineEnvironmental healthPolitical scienceLawPsychiatry

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

We appreciate the insightful responses provided by Drs Pinsky 1, Mann 2, Obot 3 and Caetano 4 on our commentary 5 regarding differences in southern versus northern hemisphere approaches to the control and prevention of drinking and driving (DWI). Dr Obot's point about the significant burden of alcohol-associated road traffic mortality in sub-Saharan Africa is absolutely correct; the World Health Organization (WHO)'s Global Status Report on Road Safety highlights DWI as a major problem in many countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America 6. Evidence-based interventions are needed urgently across most countries in order to combat this important issue. We also appreciate Dr Mann's points about the continued work that needs to be conducted in the United States and Canada; issues of further lowering the legal blood alcohol concentration (BAC) limit and conducting random breath testing (RBT) are also very much on our minds, as is the constant tension between rigorous public health evidence versus the well-organized lobby of the alcohol industry. In discussing the behavior paradox between US-born Hispanics versus Hispanic immigrants, Dr Caetano highlights an important point—the perception of deterrence may, in fact, be one of the factors that defines behaviors such as DWI, and we might hypothesize that immigrants from countries with lax attitudes towards DWI would have a strong perception of the law and its enforcement when driving in a more organized environment. Gibbs states that deterrence can be ‘[ . . . ] thought of as the omission of an act as a response to the perceived risk and fear of punishment for contrary behavior’7. As Snortum mentions 8, it is the threat of formal sanctions that can be weakened or increased according to drivers' perceptions of how laws are enforced; this is why RBT might have a role in reducing the prevalence of DWI 9, 10. A combination of efforts stemming from public health professionals, government and law-enforcement personnel, and advocacy organizations such as Mothers against Drunk Driving (MADD), could play a strong role in the efforts to decrease DWI: the goals would be legislative lobbying and increased public awareness, in conjunction with strong and targeted enforcement. The role of these organizations has been recognized in providing critical services in advocacy, legislative lobbying, public education and victim support in the United States; the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, among others, recognizes the potential impact of these organizations and frequently partners them in control efforts 11-13. There are many similar advocacy groups in the northern and southern hemispheres 14, 15 with track records of lobbying and community education; such organizations can become even more effective in advocacy and public education through involvement in government-run interventions, and resource and training support. We hope the ‘Não foi um acidente’[‘It was not an accident’] movement 16 mentioned by Dr Pinsky will catch on in Brazil and many other countries; recognizing that drinking and driving is a preventable offense instead of a ‘random accident’ is a change in thinking and culture that, if achieved, will go a long way towards combating this significant public health concern. None. FP was funded by the National Secretariat for Drug and Alcohol Policies, Brazil, the Bloomberg Foundation, RS-10 Road Safety in 10 Countries Project and the Fogarty International Center. AC was funded by the Bloomberg Foundation, RS-10 Road Safety in 10 Countries Project and GAVI's Hib Initiative, Johns Hopkins University, Department of Pediatrics.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Commentaire · Signal consensuel: Commentaire
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,026
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,028
Tête enseignante GPT0,281
Écart entre enseignants0,253 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreCommentaire

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2012
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueAddictionMême sujetSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesTravaux en français237 207