MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4362578506 · doi:10.3390/healthcare11071009

Risk Perception of Traffic Accidents Due to Alcohol and Marijuana Use in Mexican College Students

2023· article· en· W4362578506 on OpenAlexaff
Alberto Jiménez, Bruna Brands, Robert B. Mann, Gabriela Saldívar, Angélica Juárez Loya, Pamela Garbus, Catalina González‐Forteza

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic and Road Safety
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDriving under the influencePoison controlHuman factors and ergonomicsEnvironmental healthInjury preventionPopulationSuicide preventionPerceptionOccupational safety and healthPsychologyCannabisRisk perceptionAlcoholMedicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Driving under the influence (DUI) of alcohol and other drugs is a common occurrence in Western societies. Alcohol consumption is related to 15% of fatal injuries in traffic accidents worldwide, with those DUI of alcohol being up to 18 times more likely to be involved in a fatal accident. Evidence for DUI of alcohol or marijuana among the college population in Mexico is scarce. This research estimates the proportion of use of alcohol and marijuana, describes the risk perception of DUI, and evaluates the relationship between risk perception and DUI behaviors in a sample of Mexican college students aged 18 to 29. The study was cross-sectional with a non-probabilistic sample. Risk perception of suffering traffic accidents when DUI or riding with someone DUI of alcohol, marijuana, or both, was high, unlike the risk perception of being detected or sanctioned for a DUI of marijuana. The study provided valuable information on the risk perception of engaging in behaviors related to DUI of alcohol and/or marijuana. It is necessary to undertake research on the subject with probabilistic and representative samples of this population of Mexico.

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 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 score0.082
Threshold uncertainty score0.446

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcareSame topicTraffic and Road SafetyFrench-language works237,207