A quarter of a century of the DBQ: some supplementary notes on its validity with regard to accidents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article synthesises the latest information on the relationship between the Driver Behaviour Questionnaire (DBQ) and accidents. We show by means of computer simulation that correlations with accidents are necessarily small because accidents are rare events. An updated meta-analysis on the zero-order correlations between the DBQ and self-reported accidents yielded an overall r of .13 (fixed-effect and random-effects models) for violations (57,480 participants; 67 samples) and .09 (fixed-effect and random-effects models) for errors (66,028 participants; 56 samples). An analysis of a previously published DBQ dataset (975 participants) showed that by aggregating across four measurement occasions, the correlation coefficient with self-reported accidents increased from .14 to .24 for violations and from .11 to .19 for errors. Our meta-analysis also showed that DBQ violations (r = .24; 6353 participants; 20 samples) but not DBQ errors (r = − .08; 1086 participants; 16 samples) correlated with recorded vehicle speed.
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 | 0.033 | 0.296 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.054 | 0.008 |
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".