MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2090624772 · doi:10.1111/1556-4029.12227

A Review of Alcohol‐Impaired Driving: The Role of Blood Alcohol Concentration and Complexity of the Driving Task

2013· review· en· W2090624772 on OpenAlexaff
T.L. Martin, Patricia Solbeck, D.J. Mayers, R.M. Langille, Y. Buczek, Marc R. Pelletier

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Forensic Sciences · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSleep and Work-Related Fatigue
Canadian institutionsOntario Council of University LibrariesHealth Sciences CentreToronto Public Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTask (project management)Blood alcoholAlcohol consumptionDrunk drivingHuman factors and ergonomicsAlcoholAlcohol intakeInjury preventionDriving under the influencePoison controlPsychologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicineApplied psychologyEnvironmental healthEngineeringBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The operation of a motor vehicle requires the integrity of sensory, motor, and intellectual faculties. Impairment of these faculties following the consumption of alcohol has been studied extensively through laboratory, closed-course and on-road driving, and epidemiological studies. The scientific literature was reviewed critically, with a focus on low-to-moderate blood alcohol concentrations (BAC ≤ 0.100%), to identify the most reliable determinants of alcohol-impaired driving. Variables such as age, gender, driving skill, and tolerance were shown to have limited impact on impairment. It was concluded the most relevant variables are BAC and complexity of the driving task. The scientific literature provides a high degree of confidence to support the conclusion that a BAC of 0.050% impairs faculties required in the operation of a motor vehicle. Whether impairment is apparent depends upon the complexity of the driving task, which applies to both study design and actual driving.

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)0.003
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.101
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Citations132
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Forensic SciencesSame topicSleep and Work-Related FatigueFrench-language works237,207