MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394891131 · doi:10.1177/0032258x241246970

Lessons learnt from roadside collisions: A Canadian police perspective

2024· article· en· W4394891131 on OpenAlex
Mohammadali Tofighi, Ali Asgary, Ahmad Mohammadi, Felippe Cronemberger, Brady Podloski, Peter Y. Park, Xia Liu, Abir Mukherjee

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Police Journal Theory Practice and Principles · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic and Road Safety
Canadian institutionsAUG Signals (Canada)York University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCollisionOfficerPerspective (graphical)Training (meteorology)Computer securityEngineeringPolitical scienceComputer scienceGeographyLawArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study explores roadside collision risks among Canadian police officers, investigating concerns, contributing factors, training, and technology adoption. A survey of 59 officers on traffic-related assignments reveals that 19 officers experienced at least one real collision (30 real collisions in total), and all of them experienced at least one near-miss collision (136 near miss collisions in total) during their services. In 86% of all collisions, cars approached from behind. While 81% of officers received minimal collision prevention training, 87% acknowledged the benefits of a collision warning device, emphasizing the need for comprehensive training and technology implementation to enhance officer safety.

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 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)0.001
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.751
Threshold uncertainty score0.924

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.271 · 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