MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1515433497

Young DUI Offenders Seen in Substance Abuse Treatment

2009· article· en· W1515433497 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Jane Carlisle Maxwell, James Freeman, Jeremy D. Davey

Bibliographic record

VenueQUT ePrints (Queensland University of Technology) · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Center for Injury Prevention and ControlNational Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentCenters for Disease Control and PreventionTransport CanadaPacific Institute for Research and EvaluationTexas Department of State Health ServicesU.S. Department of State
KeywordsDriving under the influencePopulationDemographyAbstinenceInjury preventionSubstance abuseSuicide preventionPoison controlEthnic groupYoung adultHuman factors and ergonomicsPsychologyDrunk driversMedicineGerontologyDrunk drivingPsychiatryEnvironmental healthSociology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite considerable efforts to reduce the burden of driving while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, Driving Under the Influence (DUI) crashes remain a major road safety problem (Chou et al., 2006). While research has demonstrated that apprehended DUI offenders are often a heterogenic group (Begg et al., 2003; Nochajski & Stasiewicz, 2006), young offenders remain an "at risk" group and continue to be disproportionately represented in DUI statistics (Chou et al., 2006; Chirstoffersen et al., in press; Greening & Stoppelbein, 2000; Horwood & Fergusson, 2000). Young men ages 18 to 20 reported DUI more frequently than any other age group (Shults et al., 2002; Quinlan et al., 2005), and not surprisingly, age and DUI have a negative relationship (Chou et al., 2006). Being involved in an alcohol-related crash at a young age does not appear to be a significant deterrent against re-offending, as research has indicated such individuals are in fact more likely to drink and drive as well as crash again in the future (Ferrante et al., 2001). And young males are at a higher risk of engaging in DUI offenses than females (Chou et al., 2006), although an increasing number of females are being apprehended for DUI offenses and entering treatment programs as a result of a DUI (Maxwell et al., 2007).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.694

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQUT ePrints (Queensland University of Technology)Same topicSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207