Position of the NSC Committee on Alcohol and Other Drugs on the Source Code of Evidential Breath-Alcohol Analyzers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Beginning in the late 1980s in Washington State, and more recently and frequently in other jurisdictions including Arizona, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Tennessee, Texas, and the Province of Ontario, Canada, defendants in driving-under-the-influence-of-alcohol cases have made discovery demands for the Source Code * of the computer software of the evidential breath-alcohol analyzers with which they had been tested.The Committee on Alcohol and Other Drugs has been advised that the great majority of trial and appellate court decisions on such Source Code issues to date have denied the defense access to the Source Code, chiefly on the grounds that it is not material or necessary to the challenge of the evidential breath-alcohol analyzer and/or the results yielded by that device, or that the state has no duty to disclose information not in its control, custody, or possession.However, in aggregate, Source Code litigation has resulted in great expenditures of effort, time, and costs as well as substantial delays in resolving the underlying cases, without useful outcomes.Therefore, the Committee has in the public interest examined in detail the Source Code litigation discovery issue, from a forensic science and technological perspective.The Journal of Analytical Toxicology received the following Position Statement titled "Approved Position Statement on Source Codes" from the National Safety Council's Committee on Alcohol and Other Drugs:
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 | 0.049 | 0.108 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.010 |
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".