MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W652089020 · doi:10.14201/adcaij2013252535

Interventions via Social Influence for Emergent Suboptimal Restraint Use

2013· article· en· W652089020 on OpenAlexafffund
Felicitas Mokom, Ziad Kobti

Bibliographic record

VenueADCAIJ ADVANCES IN DISTRIBUTED COMPUTING AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE JOURNAL · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAutomotive and Human Injury Biomechanics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsPsychological interventionPopularityPopulationPsychologyMedicineSocial psychologyEnvironmental healthPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although restraint use has increased primarily in developed countries, vehicle accident-related injuries and deaths continue to be a problem. Alongside lack of restraint use, studies involving suboptimal restraint use have gained recent popularity. In this study we investigate the use of social influence forinterventions to counter emerging suboptimal restraint use in groups of agents.A multi-agent simulation model is provided where dominant individuals use randomly assigned influence rates to repeatedly alter the knowledge of lessinfluential group members. Cultural influence is implemented via a cultural algorithm and used to simulate individuals affected by beliefs in the community. Objectives include investigating the emergence of patterns of restraint selection and use as well as interventions targeted at more influential agents. Results demonstrate that prominent patterns of behaviour similar to the influentialmembers of the groups do emerge. Furthermore, interventions targeted at influential group members outperform interventions targeted at a percentage of the population at large. Interventions succeed at some level both in the presence and absence of cultural influence.

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 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)0.000
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.951
Threshold uncertainty score0.751

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.312 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations14
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueADCAIJ ADVANCES IN DISTRIBUTED COMPUTING AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE JOURNALSame topicAutomotive and Human Injury BiomechanicsFrench-language works237,207