MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2041522090 · doi:10.3138/cpp.36.suppl.s69

Self-Reported Motor Vehicle Injury Prevention Strategies, Risky Driving Behaviours, and Subsequent Motor Vehicle Injuries: Analysis of Canadian National Population Health Survey

2010· article· en· W2041522090 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Evelyn Vingilis, Piotr Wilk

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Public Policy · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic and Road Safety
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInjury preventionOccupational safety and healthPoison controlHuman factors and ergonomicsPopulationSuicide preventionMedicineEnvironmental healthPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to examine self-reported motor vehicle injury prevention strategies, speeding and impaired driving, and the effects of speeding and impaired driving on subsequent motor vehicle collision injuries, using the Canadian National Population Health Survey (NPHS). Strategies commonly reported were preventing impaired drivers from driving, using designated drivers, and requiring passengers to use seatbelts. Yet a substantial minority, particularly young males, reported engaging in risky driving behaviours such as speeding and impaired driving. Self-reported speeders and impaired drivers had significantly higher odds of reporting injuries from subsequent motor vehicle collisions. Specifically, those who reported sometimes/rarely or never obeying the speed limits were two and a half times more likely to report a subsequent motor vehicle injury, while those who reported impaired driving one or more times in the past 12 months were two times more likely to report a subsequent motor vehicle injury. These findings support the need for continued focus on speeding, drinking and driving, and other risky driving behaviours to reduce collisions in Canada.

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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Citations6
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Public PolicySame topicTraffic and Road SafetyFrench-language works237,207