MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2748544967 · doi:10.1177/1460408617724816

Driving habits – A Canadian study

2017· article· en· W2748544967 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueTrauma · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic and Road Safety
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSeat beltMedicineInjury preventionEnvironmental healthOccupational safety and healthHuman factors and ergonomicsPoison controlSafe drivingSuicide preventionPopulationEthnic groupMedical emergencyEngineeringAutomotive engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Motor vehicle accidents are a significant cause of morbidity and mortality. Safe driving behavior constitutes proper use of seat belts as a driver and as a passenger. The correct use of seat belts has been shown to reduce death and injury following motor vehicle accidents by more than 50%. This study aims at investigating seat belt use and driving habits among Canadians. Method A population-based database from the Canadian Community Health Survey was analyzed. Result About 12% reported that they use seat belts most of the times, rarely or never and 27% of respondents were using cellphone while driving often or sometimes; 8% of respondents admitted to driving after 2 or more alcoholic drinks. Seat belt use in taxi passengers is much lower than in own cars, with 40% not using a seatbelt all of the time when in a taxi. Discussion and conclusions The major risk factors for not wearing seat belt as a passenger include age, education, ethnicity and income.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.527
Threshold uncertainty score0.987

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.213 · 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