Are Perceptions About Driving Risk and Driving Skill Prospectively Associated with Risky Driving Among Teenagers?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to examine prospective associations of perceptions of driving risk and skill with teenage risky driving. The vehicles of 42 newly licensed teenage drivers were instrumented with a data acquisition system. Objective measures of risky driving [crash and near crash (CNC) and kinematic risky driving (KRD) rates] obtained from accelerometers were aggregated over three 6-month periods (T1, T2, and T3). The Checkpoints Self-Reported Risky Driving Scale (C-RDS) and perceptions of driving risk and driving skills were collected at corresponding 6-month intervals. The results indicated that CNC, KRD, and C-RDS were significantly correlated at T1 to T3. Perceptions of driving risk and skill were not significantly correlated with objective or self-reported measures of risky driving. No evidence was found that perceptions of risk or skill were prospectively associated with risky driving. It was concluded that perceptions of risk and driving skills may have limited utility as objectives of prevention efforts.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".