MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2052656702 · doi:10.1080/01924780903349080

Fit to Drive: A Pilot Study to Improve the Physical Fitness of Older Drivers

2009· article· en· W2052656702 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueActivities Adaptation & Aging · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOlder Adults Driving Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlexibility (engineering)Physical fitnessPsychologyPhysical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationGerontologyApplied psychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This pilot study aimed to explore whether maintaining a driver's license could motivate older adults to participate in a regular fitness program, and determine whether gains in fitness could result in self-perceived improvements in driving. Physical measures and questionnaires were collected from 19 participants and 5 controls. For the intervention group, men showed significant gains in one measure of endurance, while women showed gains in strength, endurance, agility, flexibility, and hand reaction time. Half of the participants felt their driving skills had improved, and 40% reported an increase in driving confidence. Controls showed some improvements in endurance and foot reaction time but no self-reported improvements in driving. This study contributes to the understanding of older adults' motivation for activity participation, and suggests that improvements in physical conditioning may have a positive impact on driver safety.

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.

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)0.000
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.703
Threshold uncertainty score0.648

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.334 · 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