Unsafe driving in North American automobile commercials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Motor-vehicle crashes (MVCs) are a leading cause of death of young Americans and Canadians. Aggressive driving and driving at high speed are frequently cited as contributing to crashes. Consumer and safety associations have raised concern that driving behaviour portrayed in automobile commercials may influence consumer-driving behaviour. However, the prevalence of aggressive driving in automobile commercials has not been systematically evaluated. OBJECTIVES: To identify the prevalence and types of unsafe driving that are portrayed in United States and Canadian televised automobile commercials as well as the use of safety promotion and disclaimers. DESIGN: All English language automobile and truck commercials (>or=30 seconds in length), airing nationally on major broadcast and cable networks in either the United States or Canada during January or July between 1998 and 2002 were assessed by three independent raters for the presence and type of unsafe driving activity, presence of safety promotion and the use of written disclaimers in each commercial. RESULTS: Of 250 total commercials, 113 (45 per cent) contained an unsafe driving sequence as determined by at least two of three raters. Unanimous agreement as to the presence of an unsafe driving sequence was found in 63 (25 per cent) commercials. Aggressive driving accounted for 85 per cent of the unsafe driving sequences, including 56 per cent with speed violations. Safety promotion was present in 30 (12 per cent) commercials. Of 141 commercials in which the gender /sex of the driver was shown, 115 (81 per cent) displayed a male driver. CONCLUSION: Unsafe driving is prevalent in North American automobile commercials. Given the extent to which MVCs are a public health and economic concern, this finding seems in conflict with responsible advertising. The degree to which the portrayal of driving in automobile commercials affects consumer-driving behaviour should be an area of further investigation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".