MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2075567570 · doi:10.1177/1524838006286689

Can We Prevent Road Rage?

2006· review· en· W2075567570 on OpenAlex
Mark Asbridge, Reginald G. Smart, Robert E. Mann

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

VenueTrauma Violence & Abuse · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic and Road Safety
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRage (emotion)Transport engineeringStrengths and weaknessesAggressive drivingBusinessPoison controlPublic relationsHuman factors and ergonomicsPolitical scienceEngineeringPsychologyMedicineSocial psychologyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Road rage has become a serious concern in many countries, and preventive efforts are required. This article reviews what can be done to prevent road rage by exploring potential prevention avenues in five areas. First, legal changes aimed at increasing the penalties for road rage behavior could be instituted, drawing on models from aggressive-driving or impaired-driving laws. A second approach would involve the adoption of court programs for convicted road ragers. Third, car redesign offers a means of reducing crime through environmental design. Fourth, mass media education could be implemented to inform drivers of the risk from road rage and how to avoid situations that facilitate road rage. Finally, prevention efforts could be directed to long-term societal changes that emphasize structural modifications, such as reducing congestion on the roads, reduced driver stress, or promoting public transportation. The strengths and weaknesses of these strategies are discussed.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.989
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.241 · 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