ALCOHOL IGNITION INTERLOCK: ONE YEARS EXPERIENCE IN QUEBEC
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since December 1997, an alcohol ignition interlock program has been in place in Quebec. Working on a voluntary basis, the program operates on a user-pay rental scheme with an installation fee of C$150 plus C$87.50 per month. The incentive to participate in the program is a 9-month reduction of the license suspension for a first DWI offence (3-month suspension plus 9 months on interlock instead of 1-year suspension) and, until July 1999, an 18-month reduction for a second DWI offence (6-month suspension plus 18 months on interlock instead of 2-year suspension). During the first year of implementation, 4,160 drivers had obtained a restricted license (must drive with an interlock). On average, these 4,160 drivers stayed 223.4 days on the program between December 1, 1997 and May 31, 1999 (772 restricted licenses obtained before December 1998 were still active on May 31, 1999). A simple before-during-after comparison of traffic convictions, DWI convictions, casualty crashes and property damage only (PDO) crashes per 10,000 days of exposure was performed. Preliminary results indicate a very low DWI re-conviction rate and a large decrease in crashes for both during and after periods. Despite more formal evaluation needed, preliminary results clearly suggest that it is worth continuing the program. For the covering abstract see ITRD E106992.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".