The Effect of Swallowing or Rinsing Alcohol Solution on the Mouth Alcohol Effect and Slope Detection of the Intoxilyzer 5000
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nine female and 21 male alcohol-free subjects introduced 10 mL of diluted gin (20% v/v alcohol) into their mouths under two conditions. The subjects either rinsed the alcohol for 10 s and then expectorated or immediately swallowed. They then provided breath samples into an Intoxilyzer 5000 at 5 and 10 min postadministration for both conditions. The mean Intoxilyzer results plus or minus one standard deviation (n = 30) were 0.091+/-0.051; 0.036+/-0.027; 0.014+/-0.011, and 0.004+/-0.006 g/210 L for 5 min after rinsing, 5 min after swallowing, 10 min after rinsing, and 10 min after swallowing, respectively. The percentages of times that mouth alcohol was correctly detected by the Intoxilyzer 5000 were 90%, 66%, 62% and 30% for these conditions, respectively. Ten minutes after the introduction of alcohol into the mouth, 63% of the Intoxilyzer results were > 0.010 g/210L after rinsing compared with only 7% after swallowing. The mouth alcohol effect is greater for rinsing than for swallowing alcohol.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".