MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2258024680 · doi:10.1080/15389588.2015.1045503

Factors affecting conviction rates of intoxicated driver patients in two large trauma centers

2015· article· en· W2258024680 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Regan Lyon, Cristóbal S. Berry-Cabán, Christopher J. Lyon, Helen Markowski, Sara L. Boltinhouse

Bibliographic record

VenueTraffic Injury Prevention · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOlder Adults Driving Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConvictionInjury preventionPoison controlSuicide preventionOccupational safety and healthHuman factors and ergonomicsMedical emergencyMedicineRetrospective cohort studyMetropolitan areaTrauma centerEmergency medicineLawPolitical scienceSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Outcomes from previous studies report the driving under the influence (DUI) conviction rates for trauma patients in several cities within Canada and the United States over the last 2 decades. This study reports charge, conviction, and prosecution rates for trauma patients at 2 level I trauma centers servicing a large metropolitan city. METHODS: A retrospective review of the trauma databases was completed to identify patients meeting inclusion criteria. Four hundred sixty patients were identified and their records were compared with the district attorney's records for DUI charges and convictions. RESULTS: The conviction rate for this study was 8.7%, demonstrating continued low rates of conviction despite growing interest and public awareness of drinking and driving. CONCLUSIONS: We discuss legal considerations that providers should consider when treating patients who have been drinking and driving.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.645

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 integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.355 · 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.

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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTraffic Injury PreventionSame topicOlder Adults Driving StudiesFrench-language works237,207