Evaluating medically at-risk drivers: A survey of assessment practices in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Assessing medical fitness to drive (FTD) can include both off- and on-road testing, although consistency of practice is unclear. PURPOSE: To examine actual practices being used to assess FTD at driver assessment centres (DACs) across Canada. METHOD: Surveys e-mailed to 90 DACs were returned by 47 assessors. FINDINGS: The majority of respondents (89%) were occupational therapists. Assessors reported doing an average of eight FTD assessments per month (range = I to 40) at an average cost of $366 (SD = $225; range = $40 to $985). Referrals came from physicians (96%), other health professionals (70%), and licensing authorities (66%). Clients with stroke, dementia, traumatic brain injury, mild cognitive impairment, and multiple sclerosis composed 62% of estimated caseloads. Assessments took 3 hr on average (range = 1.24 to 4.5 hr); 64% reported they always took clients on road regardless of clinic results. IMPLICATIONS: Evidence-based guidelines for training and assessment are clearly needed given the inconsistency in practice.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".