MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1950444756 · doi:10.1002/9780470061589.fsa1032

Fitness Impairment Testing/Detecting Driver Intoxication

2014· other· en· W1950444756 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alain Verstraete

Bibliographic record

VenueWiley Encyclopedia of Forensic Science · 2014
Typeother
Languageen
FieldPharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
TopicForensic Toxicology and Drug Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSobrietyHallucinogenPhencyclidineAlcohol intoxicationMedicineCannabisMethamphetamineDronabinolPsychologyPsychiatryPoison controlInjury preventionMedical emergencyCannabinoidInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The standard field sobriety test (SFST) is used in many jurisdictions to detect whether drivers are impaired by alcohol or drugs. Often alcohol is first determined in breath to exclude alcohol as a cause of impairment. The SFST is mostly performed by trained police officers, in some cases by physicians. The SFST can consist of many tests, but generally includes horizontal gaze nystagmus, walk‐and‐turn, and one‐leg stand. The drug evaluation and classification program in the United States and Canada has 12 steps, and lasts approximately 1 h. On the basis of this information, the drug recognition expert (DRE) determines whether a suspect is impaired, whether the observed impairment is due to drugs, and which category (or categories) of drugs might be responsible. There are seven categories: central nervous system (CNS) depressants, CNS stimulants, hallucinogens, phencyclidine, narcotic analgesics, inhalants, and cannabis. Although these tests are relatively reliable in determining whether someone is impaired and the cause of the impairment, they lack sensitivity, and recent studies have shown that the SFST was not sensitive to clinically relevant driving impairment caused by several drugs such as tetrahydrocannabinol or methamphetamine.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.540
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.322 · 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.

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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWiley Encyclopedia of Forensic ScienceSame topicForensic Toxicology and Drug AnalysisFrench-language works237,207