MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1978967816 · doi:10.1136/ip.2010.029215.167

Trauma in traffic in Montenegro between 2004 and 2010

2010· article· en· W1978967816 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
M Pejakovic, J Utjesinovic, Milenko Bogdanović, R Pavlicic, N Tadic, Vladimir Knežević, V Pejakovic

Bibliographic record

VenueInjury Prevention · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInjury Epidemiology and Prevention
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMontenegroQuarter (Canadian coin)Road trafficTransport engineeringInjury preventionPoison controlMedicineDemographyEnvironmental healthEngineeringMedical emergencyGeographyForensic engineeringSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The first car showed up in Montenegro in 1902. There are 177 677 cars in Montenegro. Every third citizen owns a car. The total cost of the damage created by road accidents is estimated to 2% of the GDP, which makes the issue of traffic safety one of the issue with priority. The aim of this study is to make the trauma in traffic in Montenegro be seen so that the prevention programmes could be created. Method Data used was found in police reports in the given period. The data had been analysed, statistically processed and shown in the shape of a graph. Results 30% of cars is between 10 and 20 years old. About 41 000 cars is between 20 and 30 years old. Only a quarter of cars has the age that is less than 10 years. 12 913 persons were hurt in Montenegro from 2004 to 2010. 9559 (74%) person were slightly injured, 2830 (22%) were seriously injured and there were 524 (4%) of those who were dead. Average number of injured persons in road traffic accidents is 2152 per year. Death rate (deaths/100 000 persons) is 14/100 000 persons from given period. The drivers consist 46% (239) of cases of the total number of those killed. Co-drivers consist about 34% (177) and pedestrians consist about 20% of the cases (108). Conclusion By identifying the main sources of traffic accidents and applying all activities of prevention we can decrease the consequences of the things mentioned above.

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)0.001
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 score0.360
Threshold uncertainty score0.502

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.313 · 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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInjury PreventionSame topicInjury Epidemiology and PreventionFrench-language works237,207