Seasonal and Weather Effects on Older Drivers’ Trip Distances
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le but de cette étude a été de déterminer si la saison ou la météo, mesurées objectivement, ont affecté les distances des trajets parcourus par les conducteurs âgés (≥ 70 ans, n = 279) à travers sept sites canadiens. Pendant l'hiver, pour tous les voyages effectués, la distance était de 7 pour cent plus court, lors du contrôle pour le site et si le voyage a eu lieu pendant la journée. En outre, pour les déplacements effectués dans les limites de la ville, la distance était de 1 pour cent plus courte en hiver et 5 pour cent plus en cas de pluie, par rapport à aucune précipitation, tout en contrôlant pour le temps (ou la saison, respectivement), le moment de la journée, et le site. La nuit, contrairement à toute attente, la distance des voyages était d'environ 30 pour cent plus, lors de la commande pour la saison et le site (et la météo). Pris ensemble, ces résultats suggèrent que les conducteurs canadiens âgés modifient leurs distances de déplacement basé sur la saison, les conditions météorologiques, et l'heure de la journée, mais pas toujours dans le sens attendu. = 279) at seven Canadian sites. During winter, for all trips taken, trip distance was 7 per cent shorter when controlling for site and whether the trip occurred during the day. In addition, for trips taken within city limits, trip distance was 1 per cent shorter during winter and 5 per cent longer during rain when compared to no precipitation when controlling for weather (or season respectively), time of day, and site. At night, trip distance was about 30 per cent longer when controlling for season and site (and weather), contrary to expectations. Together, these results suggest that older Canadian drivers alter their trip distances based on season, weather conditions, and time of day, although not always in the expected direction.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 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".