MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1518142211 · doi:10.20381/ruor-933

‘Road Smart’: Canada Safety Council Drivers’ Education And Training Tool

2005· article· en· W1518142211 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ajax Persaud, Daniel Shipton

Bibliographic record

VenueuO Research (University of Ottawa) · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHuman-Automation Interaction and Safety
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTraining (meteorology)BusinessTransport engineeringPublic relationsComputer securityComputer scienceEngineeringPolitical scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The CSC is a non-profit organisation dedicated to the prevention of injuries and fatalities in Canada. Faced with the rising social problem of unsafe teenage drivers, the organisation developed a drivers' education/training CD-ROM entitled ‘Road Smart’. The product was designed in partnership with Shell Canada, but the company has declined to further support its distribution. Hence, ‘Road Smart’ is now a finished product in search of marketing strategy. Unfortunately, the CD-ROM faces a challenging set of external obstacles that could seriously jeopardise its market potential, and CSC’s ability to breakeven on the venture. CSC’s challenge is to find a suitable distribution and marketing strategy more than three years after the product was initially commissioned. Seemingly, there is much to be optimistic about. First, there is a definite need for this product in the marketplace. Teenage drivers are unduly dangerous as a group. The product is well designed and easy to use, and as such should help alleviate this worrisome predicament. It does satisfy a need, so there is an expectation that both parents and teenagers should value the ‘Road Smart’. Also, considering the lacklustre competition in Canada for driver education material, ‘Road Smart’ should have little problem outshining its direct competitors. Besides, CSC’s reputation and status should also come in handy. The sad fact however is that teenagers do not value the product above CSC’s breakeven price of about ten dollars. This inference is based on the several market realities. Over the last few years, the CD-ROM industry has been in decline to such a degree that the marketplace has become unattractive. Substitutes for

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.335
Threshold uncertainty score0.673

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1350.034

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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueuO Research (University of Ottawa)Same topicHuman-Automation Interaction and SafetyFrench-language works237,207