MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200503733 · doi:10.3390/ijerph182312828

Reassessing Fitness-to-Drive in Drinker Drivers: The Role of Cognition and Personality

2021· article· en· W4200503733 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Luigi Tinella, Alessandro O. Caffò, Antonella Lopez, Francesco Nardulli, Ignazio Grattagliano, Andrea Bosco

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic and Road Safety
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersRegione Puglia
KeywordsMinnesota Multiphasic Personality InventoryPsychologyPersonalityClinical psychologyPsychoticismExtraversion and introversionBig Five personality traitsSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Drunken driving is among the main challenges for road safety by causing worldwide motor-vehicle crashes with severe injuries and deaths. The reassessment of fitness-to-drive in drivers stopped for drunken driving includes mainly psychological examinations. The present study aimed to investigate the effectiveness and the consistency of selected variables of different psychological driving-related dimensions (i.e., cognitive skills and personality) in discriminating 90 male drinker drivers (DD) from matched non-drinkers controls. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), the Mental Rotation Test (MRT), and the Perspective-Taking Test (PT) were administered to assess overall cognitive functioning, and object- and self-based spatial transformation abilities, respectively. Participants completed a computerized test measuring resilience of attention (DT), reaction times (RT), and perceptual speed (ATAVT). The Personality Psychopathology Five scales (i.e., PSY-5: Aggressiveness-AGGR, Psychoticism-PSYC, Disconstraint-DISC, Negative-Emotionality-NEGE, and Introversion-INTR) the validity scale (L) and the dissimulation index (F-K) were scored from the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI-2). A logistic binomial regression analysis (backward subtraction method) was used to identify discriminant predictors. A prediction analysis (ROC curve method) was performed on the final model. Results showed that the scores obtained in MRT, DT, and the personality measures of PSYC, DISC, NEGE, and INTR significantly discriminated DD from their matched controls with moderate-to-good values of accuracy (0.79), sensitivity (0.80), and specificity (0.79), as well as a good AUC value (0.89). In some cases, the personality dimensions provided-reliable-unexpected results. Low scores of PSYC, NEGE, and INTR were found to predict the membership to the DD group; results are discussed with reference to response management. Personality measures should be assessed with particular attention in a forensic context because they are more prone to be feigned than cognitive ones. Overall, the present study confirmed the relevance of integrating different driving-related psychological dimensions in the evaluation of fitness-to-drive showing the usefulness of standardized tools for the reassessment of drinker 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.

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)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.293 · 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

Citations14
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public HealthSame topicTraffic and Road SafetyFrench-language works237,207