The Effect of Culture on Gender Differences in Driver Risk Behavior through Comparative Analysis of 32 Countries
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
The purpose of the paper is to study the effect of culture on gender differences in accidental risk behaviours. The ESRA2018 database, comprising 25,459 drivers (53% male) surveyed by an online questionnaire in 32 countries, was used to observe gender and regional differences (Africa5, AsiaOceania5, Europa20, NorthAmerica2) in reported behaviour, personal and social acceptability of 4 violations: drinking and driving, speeding, not wearing a seatbelt and phone while driving. The results show that gender differences are small but significant and vary across cultures with men valuing accidental risk behaviours more than women do in all regions observed. In addition, speeding appears to be the most widespread and globally accepted of the four violations tested for both men and women. Results are discussed in terms of origin of gender differences and of factors explaining lack of compliance with speed limitation. Theses results could be useful to better tailor road safety campaigns and education.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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