MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2146500255 · doi:10.1080/15389588.2011.562945

Toward Understanding On-Road Interactions of Male and Female Drivers

2011· article· en· W2146500255 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Michael Sivak, Brandon Schoettle

Bibliographic record

VenueTraffic Injury Prevention · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic and Road Safety
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Lethbridge
KeywordsCrashDifferential (mechanical device)Human factors and ergonomicsPoison controlInjury preventionPsychologyTransport engineeringComputer scienceEngineeringMedicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: This study examined gender effects in six geometric scenarios of 2-vehicle crashes in which an involved driver could potentially ascertain the gender of the other driver prior to the crash. METHOD: The actual frequencies of different combinations of the involved male and female drivers in these crash scenarios were compared with the expected frequencies if there were no gender interactions. The expected frequencies were based on annual distance driven for personal travel by male and female drivers. RESULTS: The results indicate that in certain crash scenarios, male-to-male crashes tend to be underrepresented and female-to-female crashes tend to be overrepresented. CONCLUSIONS: The obtained pattern of results could be due to either differential gender exposure to the different scenarios, differential gender capabilities to handle specific scenarios, or differential gender expectations of actions by other drivers based on their gender. The current lack of information on gender exposure in different scenarios, scenario-specific driver skills, and driver expectations based on other drivers' gender prevents ruling out any of these possible explanations.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.197 · 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

Citations12
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTraffic Injury PreventionSame topicTraffic and Road SafetyFrench-language works237,207