MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The automobile imperative: Risks of mobility and mobility‐related risks

2000· article· en· W2148195719 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Jean Andrey

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geographies / Géographies canadiennes · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic and Road Safety
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersTransport Canada
KeywordsEnforcementTheme (computing)Political scienceWork (physics)HumanitiesGeographyWelfare economicsEngineeringEconomicsComputer scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Each year, nearly one percent of Canadians is injured in traffic accidents. This paper focuses on the nature of road transportation risks in Canada ‐ the magnitude of the problem and the reasons for its persistence. A mobility‐based approach to road safety research is advocated because of its potential to both improve understanding and help work towards longterm solutions. The discussion is organized around two main themes: risks of mobility and mobility‐related risks. In the first instance, the focus is on linkages between quantity of travel/exposure and safety, especially over time. In the second theme, the emphasis is on linkages between quality of exposure and safety. Specific themes, including weather hazards and graduated licensing, are used to develop the second theme. The main conclusion is that casualty rates per unit of travel have declined over the past 25 years, largely due to improved engineering, enforcement and education, but that casualty levels and monetary costs remain high, largely because of the auto‐mobility imperative. Chaque année, près de 1% des canadiens se blessent dans des accidents de la route. Cette communication s'intéresse à la nature du risque routier au Canada, plus spécifiquement sur l'ampleur du problème et les raisons de sa persistance. Une approche axée sur la mobilité est préconisée pour son potentiel à apporter une meilleure compréhension du problème et à faciliter la mise en place de solutions à long‐terme. La discussion s'organise autour de deux thèmes centraux: 1) le risque de la mobilité et 2) les risques liés à la mobilité. En premier lieu, les liens entre la quantité des déplacements/exposition au risque et la sécurité sont investigués à travers le temps. Pour le deuxiéme thème, l'accent est mis sur les liens entre la qualité de l'exposition et la securité. Des thèmes spécifiques incluant les conditions météorologiques et l'expérience de conduite sont utilisés pour développer le deuxième thème. La principale conclusion est que les taux de blessures par unité de déplacement ont diminué au cours des 25 dernières années, ce qui est en grande partie attribuable au progrès en ingénierie, à la mise en place de mesures coercitives et à l'éducation. Toutefois, la gravité des blessures et les coûts monétaires qui y sont liés demeurent élevés principalement à cause des impératifs de la mobilité automobile.

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)0.006
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.226
Threshold uncertainty score0.455

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.007
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Citations8
Published2000
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geographies / Géographies canadiennesSame topicTraffic and Road SafetyFrench-language works237,207