Cognitive basis about risk level classifications for the self-assessment of older drivers
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
[Purpose] This study analyzed the cognitive functions according to risk level for the Driver 65 Plus measure, and examined the cognitive basis of self-assessment for screening the driving risk of elderly drivers. [Subjects and Methods] A total of 46 older drivers with a driver's license participated in this study. All participants were evaluated with Driver 65 Plus. They were classified into three groups of "safe," "caution" and "stop," and examined for cognitive functions with Trail Making Test and Montreal Cognitive Assessment-K. The cognitive test results of the three groups were compared. [Results] Trail Making Test-A, Trail Making Test-B, and Montreal Cognitive Assessment-K showed a significant difference between the three groups. The safe group showed significantly higher ability than the caution and stop groups in the three cognitive tests. In addition, cognitive functions of naming, attention, language, and delayed recall were significantly different between the three groups. [Conclusion] Self-assessment of older drivers is a useful tool for screening the cognitive aspects of driving risk. The cognitive functions, such as attention and recall, are the critical factors for screening the driving risk of elderly drivers.
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.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it