Determinism, risk and safe driving behavior in northern Alberta, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: There is evidence that Alberta's rural north is over-represented in the Canadian province's overall traffic fatality rate, even after weather, travel exposure and highway geometry are controlled for. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to identify underlying reasons and rationales that northern citizens use to accommodate risk and driving behavior. METHODS: A total of 82 individuals participated in 13 focus groups, each with between 5 and 10 participants. Eight focus groups were conducted with general drivers and five with service professionals in five different Alberta locations. Discussions centered on a series of questions that were designed to elicit insight into general characteristics of the participants' world-view and featured two categories of questions, including dimensions of belief systems and driver characteristics and behavior. RESULTS: Although much of the discussions focused on freedom of choice, over half of the interviewees cited determinism as a key feature of responsibility. Three versions of determinism were emphasized as key in roadway safety: religious determinism, 'universal' determinism (fatalism), and humanistic determinism. These observations highlighted peoples' perception of the likelihood of getting into traffic situations outside one's control. CONCLUSION: In order to maximize the effectiveness of traffic safety in the north, professionals need to take an approach which addresses not only safety issues, but also issues regarding responsibility and its links with behavior.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".