MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2053544649 · doi:10.3138/cpp.2012-081

Aging Population and Driver Licensing: A Policy Perspective

2014· article· en· W2053544649 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Mary Kelly, Norma Nielson, Tracy Snoddon

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Public Policy · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOlder Adults Driving Studies
Canadian institutionsBalsillie School of International AffairsUniversity of CalgaryWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompetence (human resources)Transparency (behavior)Equity (law)Public policyPopulation ageingBusinessPopulationStrengths and weaknessesPublic economicsPublic relationsRisk analysis (engineering)Actuarial scienceEconomicsPolitical scienceComputer securityComputer sciencePsychologyMedicineEconomic growthManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines public policy relating to the licensing of older Canadian drivers. We focus on licence renewal frequency, assessment of driving competence, and the role of medical professionals, insurers, and police in assessing fitness-to-drive. Our evaluation of the current regimes finds shortcomings with respect to cost-effectiveness, equity, transparency, and feasibility. We propose a new elderly licensing regime which includes a two-stage assessment process with an age-based trigger, a mandatory education session, and adoption of graduated delicensing. These reforms will overcome some of the identified weaknesses of the current regime and improve road 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.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.090
Threshold uncertainty score0.654

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0060.006
Scholarly communication0.0090.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0060.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.351 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Public PolicySame topicOlder Adults Driving StudiesFrench-language works237,207