MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Blood Alcohol and Breath Alcohol Comparisons using the Intox EC/IR II

2012· article· en· W2026031395 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Sandra Louise Korkosh, Josette A Hackett, Jacqueline C. Montpetit

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Society of Forensic Science Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAlcohol Consumption and Health Effects
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlood alcoholAlcoholVolunteerBreath gas analysisMedicineBreath testAlcohol intakeSurgeryEmergency medicinePoison controlInternal medicineChemistryInjury preventionBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During Impaired Driving Investigations, peace officers can use a breath testing instrument to determine the concentration of alcohol in a person's blood to support a charge of operating a motor vehicle with a Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) in excess of 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood. The evidentiary instruments used for this purpose must be court-acceptable instruments, also known as Approved Instruments, which are named by Order of the Attorney General of Canada. One such instrument recently added to the Approved Breath Analysis Instruments Order (2009), the Intox EC/IR II, has been selected by many Canadian police agencies to replace aging instruments presently used. The purpose of this study was to look at the correlation between the BAC as determined from breath analysis on this recently approved instrument and the near simultaneous results from whole blood collection and analysis from volunteer drinking subjects. The results suggest that breath testing with the Intox EC/IR II underestimates the true BAC.

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)0.002
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 score0.074
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.114
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Citations4
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Society of Forensic Science JournalSame topicAlcohol Consumption and Health EffectsFrench-language works237,207