Notice bibliographique
Résumé
In 2014, over 100,000 people in the United States were hospitalized because of alcohol-related traffic crashes, and 9,967 died (exceeding the 6,721 US deaths from HIV in the same year) [1,2].On 17 March 2017, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) plans to promote a safety campaign against drunk driving.Past estimates suggest that law enforcement against drunk driving reduces traffic fatalities by 20% and that high-probability detection is more effective than high-severity punishment [3,4].Yet, 12 states in the US, including the large states of Texas and Minnesota, prohibit random sobriety checkpoints, and the remaining have uneven efforts against drunk driving [5].This Perspective identifies some groups with a vested interest in preventing drunk driving, describes reasons for the relative inaction, and proposes more action by physicians.Traditionally, physicians and allied health care providers have deferred to others about how to address the health risks of drunk driving.One explanation is that drunk driving is a behavioral choice, and behavioral change is difficult to effect in a time-limited clinical encounter [6].Moreover, preventive care may provide less evident benefit to the patient than prescribing an acid blocker, for example, to treat symptomatic alcohol-induced gastritis.While a pregnant woman who drinks alcohol is likely to be warned by her obstetrician or midwife on the risks to fetal development, most patients in our experience who are prone to drunk driving are easily missed because physicians rarely ask about drunk driving, despite often asking about alcohol.As a consequence, standard care may fail to identify this prevalent, modifiable, and serious health risk.Vehicle manufacturers are the most powerful commercial group that can promote traffic safety.Over time, this industry has carefully developed and marketed technologies to protect drivers, such as seat belts, airbags, antilock brakes, and safety glass.Currently, the main technology to prevent drunk driving is an ignition interlock that forces drivers to have a breath test before engine engagement.This device, now imposed only on the vehicles of convicted drunk drivers, is unlikely to be adopted broadly any time soon unless manufacturers want to boast that they make the safest cars for those prone to drunk driving.The net result is that vehicle regulators in the US are unable to rely on manufacturer innovations or economic forces to prevent drunk driving.Other large groups have even less incentive to promote sobriety while driving.Alcohol manufacturers promote "responsible drinking," which is a vacuous tautology because adverse events can be deemed "irresponsible" by rhetorical hindsight.Celebrities in the entertainment industry are occasionally charged with drunk driving yet rarely express enduring regret.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,014 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,011 | 0,001 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».