Graduated Driver Licensing in Manitoba: An Analysis of the History and Process of Creating Bill 11
Bibliographic record
Abstract
nly two more days until Christmas, dad!" nine year-old Haley Stewart informed her father as the whole family piled into the van for a short trip to grandma's place.Haley never saw Christmas that year.Nor will Haley ever see another Christmas.The family van was struck from behind by an inattentive seventeen year-old driver.It careened into the opposite lane and was struck again by an oncoming car.Haley's father was thrown from the van and pinned beneath it.Haley's mother lapsed into a two-week coma and almost died.Haley died in hospital on Christmas Eve, 1997.The teenage driver was traveling at speeds in excess of 110 km/hr and had been ticketed for a stop sign violation only five days previously.Stories like this one prompted attention from government. 1 And in 2001, the government did, indeed, respond."Province puts brakes on new drivers" read the headlines in the 28 April 2001 edition of the Winnipeg Free Press announcing a new system of multi-stage licensing designed to reduce automobile accidents for novice drivers in Manitoba.2 This new system of licensing, known commonly as 'graduated licensing', was enacted on 5 July 2001 pursuant to the Highway Traffic 1 This is a true story.Shortly after recovering enough to leave the hospital, Haley's mother, Sharon Stewart, thoroughly researched issues pertaining to novice and teenage drivers.Ms. Stewart subsequently became a passionate advocate of graduated driver licensing systems.The facts of the event recounted at the beginning of this essay were compiled from letters Ms. Stewart had created in the process of lobbying government, and from a transcript entitled "Personal Story for Drivers Ed Class". 2 Leah Hendry "Province puts brakes on new drivers: Three stage program applies to all novices, regardless of age" Winnipeg Free Press (28 April 2001) A6.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".