MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2285716895

THE QUEBEC GRADUATED LICENSING SYSTEM FOR NOVICE DRIVERS: A TWO-YEAR EVALUATION OF THE 1997 REFORM

2000· article· en· W2285716895 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jessica Bouchard, Christian Dussault, Raymonde Simard, Michel Gendreau, A M Lemire

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings International Council on Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety Conference · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic and Road Safety
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCeiling (cloud)Transport engineeringOperations managementDemographyGeographyEngineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since July 1997, the revised Quebec graduated licensing system (GLS) encompasses a learning period (accompanying rider, zero BAC and ceiling of 4 demerit points) of 12 months for all new drivers, with the possibility of reducing it to 8 months by taking a driving course, and a probationary period (zero BAC and ceiling of 4 demerit points) of two years applying only to drivers under 25 years of age. Prior to the 1997 reform, the Quebec GLS had only minor restrictions (ceiling of 10 demerit points instead of 15 for a regular licence). This paper presents an evaluation of the 1997 reform using a before/after design (2 years/2 years) with a comparison group. The record of the GLS group (learner and probationary) is compared to a non-GLS group composed of all young drivers (18-24 year-olds) holding a regular licence. Using the same design, preliminary results have shown that the net one-year effect of the revised GLS was to reduce fatalities by 32.8% and injuries by 15.1%. The two-year evaluation found a 4.9% reduction in fatalities and a 14.4% reduction in injuries. Possible reasons for this disparity between results are discussed and for the first time, the study evaluated the impact of Zero Alcohol on collision involvement. For the covering abstract see ITRD E106992.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.873
Threshold uncertainty score0.580

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.247
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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations18
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings International Council on Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety ConferenceSame topicTraffic and Road SafetyFrench-language works237,207