Evaluation of the Intoxilyzer® 9000 evidential breath alcohol testing instrument
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Alcohol Test Committee (ATC) of the Canadian Society of Forensic Science sets out equipment standards and evaluation procedures for the evaluation of breath testing equipment in Canada. The Intoxilyzer® 9000 was evaluated according to the 2014 Equipment Standards and Evaluation Procedures with results demonstrating that the instrument met, or exceeded, the requirements of the ATC on all criteria including accuracy, linearity, precision, and acetone interference. Human subject testing provided a comparison of blood alcohol concentrations (BACs) determined by the Intoxilyzer® 9000 with near-simultaneous breath test results from an Intoxilyzer® 8000C, an Approved Instrument in Canada since 2007. The results of 50 paired breath samples on 10 drinking subjects were well-correlated (R2 = 0.966) and described by a linear model, y = 0.95x + 0.84. The validation of the Intoxilyzer® 9000 according to the standards of the ATC demonstrates the instrument to be an accurate and reliable means of determining breath alcohol concentrations over a range of forensically relevant BACs. The Intoxilyzer® 9000 was added to the Approved Breath Analysis Instruments Order in 2019 identifying it as suitable for the purposes of Section 320.14 of the Criminal Code of Canada.
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 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 | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".