MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2302911976

Collision Involvement of Older Commercial Truck Drivers

2006· article· en· W2302911976 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Eric Hildebrand, Jillian L. Morrison

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOlder Adults Driving Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTruckCollisionEconomic shortagePopulationBusinessOrder (exchange)Transport engineeringEngineeringComputer securityEnvironmental healthFinanceComputer scienceMedicineGovernment (linguistics)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In light of Canada’s aging population, a fair amount of attention has been given to the safety issues surrounding elderly drivers and possible relicensing or retesting strategies. It is well documented that collision rates dramatically increase as the general population of drivers progress into their senior years. Unfortunately, little is known about the relative collision involvement of aging commercial drivers. The trucking industry is struggling to manage a chronic driver shortage problem, so the employment of older drivers will likely increase. Past research has indicated driving related skills including perception and motor skills begin to decline at approximately age 65. Other studies have shown that elderly passenger vehicle drivers regulate their driving behaviour by avoiding certain high-risk driving situations. This is not always possible for older commercial vehicle drivers who may not be able to avoid driving at night, long distances, during rush hour and in construction zones. For this reason, combined with the increased responsibility associated with operating commercial vehicles and higher collision consequences, it may be prudent to impose more stringent licensing standards on aging commercial drivers. This study examines the collision involvement of older commercial truck drivers. In order to achieve this, an examination of the collision involvement of elderly commercial drivers in New Brunswick was conducted. The collision involvement analyses used the New Brunswick Department of Transportation

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.279
Threshold uncertainty score0.554

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.335 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations2
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicOlder Adults Driving StudiesFrench-language works237,207