MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1142570629

The Road Safety Monitor 2006: Distracted Driving

2007· article· en· W1142570629 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ward Vanlaar, H M Simpson, Dan Mayhew, Robyn Robertson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic and Road Safety
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDistractionDistracted drivingBrakeCollisionPoison controlEngineeringApplied psychologyComputer securityTransport engineeringPsychologyAeronauticsComputer scienceAutomotive engineeringMedical emergencyMedicineCognitive psychology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Road Safety Monitor (RSM) is an annual public opinion survey by the Traffic Injury Research Foundation (TIRF) that takes the pulse of the nation on key road safety issues by means of a telephone survey of a random, representative sample of Canadian drivers. The results of the RSM are released in a series of reports – the present one focuses on driver distraction. Results show that a growing number of Canadians are concerned about distracted driving – in a previous survey in 2001, about 40% of Canadians thought distracted driving was a serious problem; the current survey found that nearly 70% thought it was a serious problem. 95.5% of drivers think there is more distracted driving today than there was 5 years ago. Distractions from outside the vehicle were reported more often as a problem than distractions from within the vehicle – for example, 9.5% of the drivers surveyed said they had to brake or steer to avoid a collision caused by a distraction inside the vehicle, whereas over twice that number (20.2%) said they had to brake or steer to avoid a collision caused by a distraction outside the vehicle. Age of driver was unrelated to problems associated with distractions arising from outside the vehicle but was closely related to problems with internal distractions – e.g., 19.5% of young drivers reported they had to brake or steer to avoid a collision as a result of a distraction arising inside the vehicle, compared to only 6% of 55-64 year olds. The use of a cell phone while driving appears to be increasing – in 2001, 20.5% of drivers reported using a cell phone while driving in the past seven days; in the current survey that number had risen to 37%. However, there also appears to be a trend toward lower usage time – e.g., there has been an increase in the percentage of drivers who use their cell phone for less than 10 minutes a week (from 57.6% in 2001 to 69.4% in 2006) and a decrease in those who use it between 10 and 20 minutes (from 23.4% to 14.7%). Further monitoring is necessary before drawing definitive conclusions about these changes. Male drivers and young drivers aged 16-34 are more likely to report using their cell phone while driving. Canadians overwhelmingly support more educational and awareness efforts on the broader issue of distracted driving. More specifically, on the potential dangers associated with the use of electronic devices, there is little agreement regarding the most effective prevention measures; however, there is considerable support for a restriction on the use of cell phones by new drivers.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.643
Threshold uncertainty score0.719

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.004
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.198 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTraffic and Road Safety→French-language works237,207→