MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W23837743 · doi:10.1186/1710-1492-9-24

Safety and Fuel Economy of Passenger Cars

2007· article· en· W23837743 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Masayoshi Tanishita, Hiroaki Miyoshi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic and Road Safety
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInjury preventionOccupational safety and healthFatal accidentPoison controlForensic engineeringEnvironmental healthEngineeringMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the United States, while there exists a result of analysis that shows tighter fuel efficiency requirements leading to lighter vehicle bodies would increase the number of fatal accidents, other recent works argue that fuel economy is not relevant to the occurrence rate of fatal accidents. This research is aimed at examining the relationship between fuel economy and the occurrence rates of accidents in Japan. Traditionally, the safety of passenger cars has been assessed through the use of laboratory data from the viewpoint of risk of death and injury under the assumption that accidents have already occurred and results have been published in New Car Assessment. On the other hand, we examined safety by vehicle type from the perspective of the occurrence rates of accidents resulting in death (fatal accidents) and accidents resulting in injury or death (hereinafter “accidents”). We conducted negative binominal regression analyses of the occurrence rates of fatal accidents and accidents, taking into consideration the influence of driver-related factors, vehicle characteristics on these occurrence rates. The results of our analysis demonstrate that there is no important difference in the adjusted occurrence rates of fatal accidents and accidents,

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score0.158

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0280.004

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.181
Teacher spread0.177 · 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

Citations1
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTraffic and Road Safety→French-language works237,207→