Holding On and Letting Go: The Perspectives of Pre-seniors and Seniors on Driving Self-Regulation in Later Life
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although decisions related to driving are vital to well-being in later life, little is known about how aging drivers who do not experience a medical condition that requires driving cessation regulate their driving. This exploratory, qualitative study used focus groups with 79 such community-dwelling individuals to examine driving self-regulation from the perspective of pre-senior (aged 55-64) drivers, senior (aged 65 years or over) drivers, and senior ex-drivers. Themes resulting from inductive analysis addressed the importance of driving, mechanisms of self-monitoring and self-regulation, people who influenced decision making, and opinions regarding licensing regulations. A preliminary model of the process of self-regulation that highlights intrapersonal, interpersonal, and environmental influences on why, how, and when aging drivers adapt or cease driving is presented. The model identifies areas for future research to enhance understanding of this process, including the effectiveness of self-regulation. Findings suggest that increased public awareness of issues related to driving and aging could assist aging drivers, their families, and their family physicians in optimizing driving safety for this population. Since a near accident or accident was seen as the only factor that would lead many informants to stop driving and few informants planned for driving cessation, there is a need for interventions that help aging drivers make the transition to ex-driver in a timely and personally acceptable way.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it