MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2101057675

THE DRUG RECOGNITION EXPERT OFFICER:SIGNS OF DRUG IMPAIRMENT AT ROADSIDE

2002· article· en· W2101057675 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tiffany Page

Bibliographic record

VenuePROCEEDINGS OF THE 16TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ALCOHOL, DRUGS AND TRAFFIC SAFETY · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
TopicForensic Toxicology and Drug Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOfficerSobrietyMedicineDrug detectionDrugLaw enforcementPsychologyPsychiatryLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Approximately 5,000 Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) officers serve in the United States and British Columbia, Canada. Law enforcement agencies in Australia, England and Germany have also adopted variations of DRE procedures. The primary function of a DRE is to evaluate drivers for impairment due to drugs other than alcohol. If the DRE evaluation is positive for drugs, the DRE will identify the category (s) of drug (s), based on shared patterns of effects, causing the impairment. The DRE evaluation typically occurs following an impaired driving arrest by a non-DRE officer who suspects drug impairment. Drug impairment is typically suspected when the impairment is not consistent with the driver's alcohol level as determined by a chemical test. The involvement of a DRE officer depends upon the ability of an arresting officer to quickly identify cues that suggest drug impairment. Generally, the driving under the influence investigation involves three phases: (1) Illegal or erratic driving actions that alert the officer to the possibility of alcohol and/or drug impairment; (2) Face to face encounter with the driver during which the officer may discover indicia, including physiological signs, of drug impairment; and (3) Administration of the Standardized Field Sobriety Test (SFST) battery, concluding with the decision to arrest or release the driver. The decision to administer the SFST battery is largely based upon evidence of impairment recognized during the phase two encounter. This paper summarizes Phase 2 cues that are taught in SFST and DRE courses, and compares these cues with those documented in a sample of actual DUI-DRE investigations. It will discuss the results and implications of this comparison for the DRE curricula, as well as for the training of the non-DRE traffic enforcement officer. In addition, this paper will provide an overview and update of the DRE program, procedures, training, and court decisions. (A) For the covering abstract of the conference, see ITRD Abstract No. E201067.

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)0.000
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.096

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0290.009

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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.270 · 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

Citations2
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePROCEEDINGS OF THE 16TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ALCOHOL, DRUGS AND TRAFFIC SAFETYSame topicForensic Toxicology and Drug AnalysisFrench-language works237,207