International Older Driver Consensus Conference on Assessment, Remediation and Counseling for Transportation Alternatives: Summary and Recommendations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SUMMARYOn December 1 and 2, 2003, 63 international experts on older driver issues met to examine three critical issues related to the safe mobility of older drivers. Conference participants addressed standards and protocols for screening and evaluating the skills of older drivers. For drivers judged to lack the necessary skills to drive safely, participants addressed methods of remediation that could enable older persons with limited cognitive or physical abilities to continue to drive. For those persons whose skills are judged inadequate for safe driving, conference participants addressed the question as to how best to counsel individuals and their caregivers on practical alternatives to driving.Consensus was achieved as to the current methods for best assessing and screening drivers, remediation techniques, and providing advice and counsel for those persons and the caregivers as to appropriate actions for those no longer able to drive safely.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.074 | 0.064 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.005 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".