Teen Drivers' Perceptions of Their Peer Passengers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The presence of peer passengers increases teenage drivers' fatal crash risk. Distraction and social influence are the two main factors that have been associated with increased risk. Teen drivers' perceptions of their peer passengers on these factors could inform our understanding of the conditions under which peer passengers increase crash risk or promote safer driving. The purpose of this study was to examine teen drivers' perceptions of their peer passengers on distraction and social influence. METHOD: A convenience sample of male and female drivers participated in a semi-structured interview that included questions on their perceptions of the effects of peer passengers on driving on distraction and social influence. The analysis of the interviews was guided by a grounded theory approach. FINDINGS: Teenage drivers were aware of the risk that peer passengers posed. Some described having passengers in the vehicle as distracting, and recognized that the level of distraction increased with the number of passengers in the vehicle. Drivers that felt responsible for the safety of their peer passengers described strategies they used to control the in-vehicle environment. Drivers described driving with passengers as a performance, and articulated direct and indirect sources of pressure, gender norms, and unspoken expectations of their passengers as influencing their driving behavior. CONCLUSIONS: The influence of passengers is situation specific and dependent on whom the passenger(s) may be. Passenger influence may be either protective or harmful, depending on the circumstances. Some passengers exert direct influence, but often their influence appears more indirect and subtle.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 teacher head, 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".