THE ROLE OF FORMATIVE EVALUATION IN DEVELOPING A PREVENTION PROGRAM FOR NEW YOUNG DRIVERS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over 350 youth between 15 and 19 years of age were killed in automobile crashes in Canada in 2000 and 30,000 were injured. One approach to reducing risky driving behaviour among new drivers is family-oriented strategies, such as driving contracts. The I Promise Program (IPP) is a road-safety program targeting new young drivers and their parents. Its primary objective is to reduce traffic-related injury and death among new young drivers through a Parent-Youth Mutual Safe-Driving Contract and a Rear-Window Decal eliciting community feedback. Formative evaluation ensures that program materials and strategies are appropriate and acceptable for the program and target population(s). Because youth, IPP's major target group were not included in program development, the authors conducted a formative evaluation of the program with the three groups it impacted [new young drivers, parents of new young drivers, community members]. Analyses of gathered data indicated the need to review the IPP contract's language level, comprehensiveness, length, format and content. Discussion regarding the decal addressed its visual acuity, memory issues, anonymity of reporting, and general feasibility. (A) For the covering abstract of the conference, see ITRD Abstract No. E201067.
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 | 0.404 | 0.432 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".