MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2093015816 · doi:10.1080/17457300.2014.966120

Driving under the influence of alcohol in Cali, Colombia: prevalence and consumption patterns, 2013

2015· article· en· W2093015816 on OpenAlexaff
Francisco J. Bonilla‐Escobar, Martha L. Herrera-López, Delia Ortega-Lenis, Jhon J. Medina-Murillo, Andrés Fandiño‐Losada, Ciro Jaramillo Molina, Salomé Naranjo-Lujan, Edda P. Izquierdo, Ward Vanlaar, María Isabel Gutiérrez

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Injury Control and Safety Promotion · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSmoking Behavior and Cessation
Canadian institutionsTraffic Injury Research Foundation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental healthDriving under the influencePer capitaPoison controlMedicineInjury preventionHuman factors and ergonomicsOccupational safety and healthCross-sectional studyAlcohol consumptionSuicide preventionPsychological interventionConfidence intervalAlcoholDemographyPopulationPsychiatryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study's goal was to establish the prevalence of driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) and alcohol consumption patterns among drivers in Cali, Colombia, in 2013. A cross-sectional study based on a roadside survey using a stratified and multi-stage sampling design was developed. Thirty-two sites were chosen randomly for the selection of drivers who were then tested for blood alcohol concentration (BAC) and asked to participate in the survey. The prevalence of DUI was 0.88% (95% confidence intervals [95% CI] 0.26%-1.49%) with a lower prevalence when BAC was increasing. In addition, a higher prevalence was found during non-typical checkpoint hours (1.28, 95% CI -0.001%-0.03%). The overall prevalence is considered high, given the low alcohol consumption and vehicles per capita. Prevention measures are needed to reduce DUI during non-typical checkpoints and ongoing studies are required to monitor the trends and enable the assessment of interventions.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.194

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations14
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Injury Control and Safety PromotionSame topicSmoking Behavior and CessationFrench-language works237,207