MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Are Mouth Alcohol Defenses “Valid” or “Invalid”? The BAC Datamaster C™ “Invalid Sample” Status Message

2002· article· en· W1980290952 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
R.A. Pon, Christian Dagenais, R.A. Macalpine

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Society of Forensic Science Journal · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAnomaly Detection Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsProvincial Health Services Authority
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSample (material)ExhalationTest (biology)Protocol (science)AlcoholMedicineBiologyChromatographyPathologyChemistryAnesthesia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An experiment was conducted during two Royal Canadian Mounted Police (R.C.M.P.) BAC Datamaster C™ training courses where police officers were given measured amounts of alcoholic beverages and subsequently provided breath samples into a number of instruments. A total of fifteen subjects were tested using different BAC Datamaster C™ instruments. After being instructed to blow into the instrument using a specific exhalation pattern, six of the fifteen subjects were able to produce an “INVALID SAMPLE” status message. Considering the test protocol utilized and allowing for alcohol's disappearance from the mouth, it was demonstrated that the manner, of sample delivery by the test subject was the most likely cause of an “INVALID SAMPLE” status message during a BAC Datamaster C™ breath test.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 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

Citations2
Published2002
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Society of Forensic Science JournalSame topicAnomaly Detection Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207