MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1584612903 · doi:10.29173/cjfy21484

Personal and Social Determinants of Aggressive and Dangerous Driving

2014· article· en· W1584612903 on OpenAlex
Bruno E. Haje, Diane Symbaluk

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Family and Youth / Le Journal Canadien de Famille et de la Jeunesse · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic and Road Safety
Canadian institutionsMacEwan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAggressive drivingAngerAggressionPermissiveDangerous drivingPsychologyPoison controlDistracted drivingHuman factors and ergonomicsInjury preventionSocial psychologyComputer securityApplied psychologyMedical emergencyMedicineComputer sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aggressive and dangerous driving compromises personal and public safety. The purpose of the present study was to identify common forms of aggressive and dangerous driving and to determine contributing factors. Participants included 298 university students who completed an online survey measuring aggressive and dangerous driving and a range of possible causes. Results showed that verbal aggression was most common followed by using one’s vehicle to express anger. Aggressive driving was associated with permissive attitudes towards driving aggression, vehicle preferences, and a disposition towards anger. Texting and eating while driving were the most common types of dangerous driving. The strongest predictors of dangerous driving were commuting distance, permissive attitudes towards distracted driving, vehicle preferences, and vehicle type. Implications and suggestions for future research are discussed.

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.

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)0.001
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 score0.307
Threshold uncertainty score0.967

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.208 · 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