MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2065131335 · doi:10.3138/cjccj.2014.es04

Impact of Ontario’s Remedial Program for Drivers Convicted of Drinking and Driving on Substance Use and Problems

2014· article· en· W2065131335 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Gina Stoduto, Robert E. Mann, Rosely Flam‐Zalcman, Justin Sharpley, Bruna Brands, Jennifer E. Butters, Reginald G. Smart, Christine M. Wickens, G. Ilie, Rita K. Thomas

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice/La Revue canadienne de criminologie et de justice pénale · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRemedial educationSubstance useLegislationDriving under the influenceSuicide preventionPoison controlInjury preventionHuman factors and ergonomicsDrunk driversOccupational safety and healthProgram evaluationPsychologyMedicineEnvironmental healthPsychiatryDrunk drivingLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 1998, Ontario passed legislation requiring that all drivers convicted of drinking and driving complete a remedial program, called Back on Track (BOT), before their driver’s licences could be reinstated. Based on an assessment, clients are assigned to complete either an “education” program or a “treatment” program, depending on levels of substance-related problems. Several months following completion of their program, participants complete a follow-up interview. We report substance use and related outcome measures on 22,277 BOT participants who completed follow-up between 2000 and 2005. Completion of BOT was associated with significant reductions in the frequency of alcohol and other drug use, number of drinks consumed per drinking occasion, total numbers of substance users, and negative consequences resulting from substance use. A large number of participants became “non-users” of various substances over the course of the program. These findings provide evidence that the remedial program has beneficial effects for participants in both the education and treatment components of BOT.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.070
Threshold uncertainty score0.141

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Citations13
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice/La Revue canadienne de criminologie et de justice pénale→Same topicSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→