MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4401093818 · doi:10.5539/gjhs.v16n7p30

Bystanders’ Behaviour in Traffic Crashes: A Vietnamese Case of Confucian Morals, Social Relationships, and Good Samaritan Risks

2024· article· en· W4401093818 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Thanh Tam Tran, Adrian Sleigh, Christine LaBond, Cathy Banwell

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Journal of Health Science · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVietnameseSocial connectednessCrashMoralityTraffic accidentSocial psychologyEthnographyPoison controlDutyThematic analysisPsychologyCriminologyMedicineSociologyMedical emergencyLawQualitative researchPolitical scienceForensic engineeringComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Vietnam, where Emergency Medical Service systems are often ineffective, bystanders play an essential role in prehospital care for traffic-injured victims. However, little is known about what bystanders do and what compels or hinders them from helping at the scene. This study employed a focused ethnographic approach, utilizing semi—structured, in-depth interviews with forty-eight traffic-injured patients and their families, followed by thematic analysis. The aim was to examine how Vietnamese bystanders respond to traffic crashes and navigate the competing interests and risks associated with helping strangers. There is a strong cultural expectation for them to help, based on morality (Đạo đức) and social connection (Tình nghĩa). The legal system obligates bystanders to help while excusing the other parties involved in the crash from the same duty, thus contributing to conflict at the crash scene. Bystanders can be better supported with information on basic first-aid training and revised Good Samaritan laws that build on traditional Vietnamese virtues of social connectedness rather than emphasising civic duty alone.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.102

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0120.007
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.339 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Journal of Health Science→Same topicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation→French-language works237,207→