Quality and Accuracy of Information Available on Websites for Distracted Driving: Qualitative Analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Distracted driving has become alarmingly widespread, and its prevalence continues to increase despite efforts by government and nongovernment organizations to educate the public about this pervasive problem. Every year, 1.35 million people die, and nearly 80 million people get injured in road traffic incidents. Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death among young people, and distracted driving plays a huge role in road traffic fatalities and injuries. Considering that most people now use the internet as an information source and Google is the most visited website and number one online search engine in the world, we performed a qualitative analysis of information available through Google on distracted driving and its outcomes. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to analyze the quality and accuracy of the information on distracted driving and its consequences available to the general public when using Google as a search engine for distracted driving. METHODS: In November 2018, a nonregional Google search on distracted driving was conducted. The first two pages of the Google search results were selected for analysis. Data were collected on the type of website, type of distraction, consequences of distracted driving described, presence and referencing of statistics, and orthopedic and nonorthopedic injuries described, with their acute and chronic sequelae. RESULTS: In total, we analyzed 25 websites: 12 websites (48%) were from government bodies, which were the most common type of websites; 19 (76%) of the sites provided statistics; and 15 (60%) referenced the source of the statistic. Mobile phones were the most frequently cited type of distraction, with 17 (68%) sites discussing it, while death was the most commonly mentioned consequence of distracted driving, quoted in 15 (60%) of the websites. Additionally, 52% of the sites provided tips on how to avoid distracted driving. Only one website mentioned orthopedic injuries. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of distracted driving is increasing, and so are the consequences associated with it. Nevertheless, the information available online does not accurately describe the current circumstances regarding this issue. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration attributed 391,000 injuries and 3477 deaths to distracted driving in 2015, which are 5000 more injuries and almost 150 more fatalities compared to 2011. However, despite these figures, most of the websites discussed death as a consequence of distracted driving and often overlooked injuries, even though injuries are over 100 times more likely to occur in distraction-affected crashes. The websites also largely fail to address other forms of driving distractions, like daydreaming or talking to a passenger, and mostly focus on mobile phone-related activities as distractions. More specific information on the dangers of distracted driving and nonlethal trauma may support an overall cultural shift to curb this behavior.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,010 | 0,022 |
| 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 | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,033 | 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 tête enseignante, 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 ».