MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4394395009 · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.9588161

Identifying motorist characteristics associated with youth bicycle–motor vehicle collisions

2019· dataset· en· W4394395009 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tona M. Pitt, Alberto Nettel‐Aguirre, Gavin R. McCormack, Brian H. Rowe, Brent Hagel

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2019
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic and Road Safety
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransport engineeringMotor vehicle crashAutomotive engineeringAeronauticsEngineeringInjury preventionPoison controlMedical emergencyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: The objective of this study was to identify driver characteristics associated with youth bicycle–motor vehicle collisions in Alberta, Canada. Methods: Edmonton and Calgary police collision report data from the years 2010–2014 were used. From these data, motor vehicle collisions involving youth (<18 years old) were identified (cases). The controls were drivers who, over the same period, were involved in separate motor vehicle–only collisions but deemed not at fault using an automated culpability analysis. Control selection used the quasi-induced exposure method, assuming that not-at-fault drivers in collisions are representative of the typical driver (source population). Descriptive statistics, including proportions, medians, and interquartile ranges (as appropriate) were used to describe the characteristics of the case and control drivers. Purposeful variable selection techniques were used to inform multivariable logistic regression models and results are presented as adjusted odds ratios (aORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: Four hundred twenty-three drivers involved in youth bicycle–motor vehicle collisions were identified, as were 243,927 not-at-fault control drivers. Drivers >54 years old had higher odds of involvement in youth bicycle–motor vehicle collisions than drivers between 25 and 39 years old (aOR = 1.37; 95% CI, 1.03, 1.82). Compared to driving between 3:01 p.m. and 6:00 p.m., driving between 12:01 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. (aOR = 0.27; 95% CI, 0.11, 0.66), between 6:01 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. (aOR = 0.61; 95% CI, 0.44, 0.85), or between 9:01 a.m. and 12:00 p.m. (aOR = 0.26; 95% CI, 0.16, 0.41) had lower odds of bicyclist collision, whereas driving between 6:01 p.m. and 12:00 a.m. had higher odds (aOR = 1.34; 95% CI, 1.01, 1.79). Driving a truck/van had lower odds of bicyclist collision compared to driving a passenger car (aOR = 0.67; 95% CI, 0.48, 0.94). Conclusions: Culpability analysis is typically applied to motorists to identify transient exposures; however, this study used culpability analysis to select control drivers who could be compared with drivers involved in youth bicycle–motor vehicle collisions. This study highlights motorist characteristics in youth bicycle–motor vehicle collisions. In doing so, we hope to inform primary prevention strategies for motorists and the environment that will reduce collisions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.661
Threshold uncertainty score0.682

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshare→Same topicTraffic and Road Safety→French-language works237,207→