MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2157255458 · doi:10.1136/ip.2010.029744

Alcohol in fatal crashes involving Mexican and Canadian drivers in the USA

2011· article· en· W2157255458 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Susan P. Baker, Joanne E. Brady, George W. Rebok, Guohua Li

Bibliographic record

VenueInjury Prevention · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
TopicForensic Toxicology and Drug Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Center for Injury Prevention and ControlNational Institute on Alcohol Abuse and AlcoholismU.S. Public Health ServiceCenters for Disease Control and Prevention
KeywordsPoison controlInjury preventionEnvironmental healthOccupational safety and healthMedicineDemographySuicide preventionHuman factors and ergonomicsCrashAlcoholBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of alcohol involvement and impairment in fatal crashes in the USA involving Mexican and Canadian drivers. METHODS: Drivers in fatal crashes in the USA were identified during 1998 to 2008 from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System, and the prevalence of alcohol involvement and impairment (defined as blood alcohol concentrations ≥0.01 g/dl and ≥0.08 g/dl, respectively) was compared among drivers licensed in Mexico (n=687), Canada (n=598), and the USA (n=561908). RESULTS: The prevalence of alcohol involvement was 27% for US drivers, 27% for Mexican drivers, and 11% for Canadian drivers. Alcohol impairment was found in 23% of US drivers, 23% of Mexican drivers, and 8% of Canadian drivers. With adjustment for driver demographic characteristics and survival status and for crash circumstances, the prevalence of alcohol involvement was significantly lower for Canadian drivers (adjusted prevalence ratio (PR) 0.63, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.80) than for US drivers, and was similar between Mexican and US drivers (adjusted PR 0.91, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.02). CONCLUSIONS: Alcohol involvement in fatal motor vehicle crashes in the USA is similarly prevalent in US and Mexican drivers, but is substantially less common in Canadian drivers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.630
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.123
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations1
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInjury PreventionSame topicForensic Toxicology and Drug AnalysisFrench-language works237,207