MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Teenage Driver Safety: Should Graduated Drivers Licensing Be Universal?

2003· review· en· W2087361197 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
W. W. Robertson, Maureen Finnegan

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Orthopaedics and Related Research · 2003
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic and Road Safety
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLicensureLicenseMedicineOccupational safety and healthPoison controlCrashInjury preventionSuicide preventionQuarter (Canadian coin)Human factors and ergonomicsTransport engineeringEnvironmental healthEngineeringMedical educationGeographyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The number of motor vehicle deaths has decreased significantly in the last quarter century. However, there remain a disproportionate number of automobile crashes involving teenage drivers. Studies have shown these accidents are related to several, possibly behavioral, factors, including driver error, speeding, and increasing numbers of passengers. The injuries and fatalities also involve a disproportionate number of teenage passengers. A three-stage Graduated Drivers Licensure process has been adopted by 34 states to try to address this potentially preventable problem. The Graduated Drivers Licensure involves a very well-supervised permit period, a lengthened provisional period that includes advanced drivers' education and supervised practice, and finally a full license. Studies from Maryland, California, Oregon, Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, and Kentucky have shown significant decreases in the crash rates among teenage drivers. The Graduated Drivers Licensure, if adopted as a national standard, may be effective in decreasing the toll of teenage driving accidents.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.230
GPT teacher head0.437
Teacher spread0.206 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations8
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Orthopaedics and Related ResearchSame topicTraffic and Road SafetyFrench-language works237,207