MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Identifying modifiable factors related to novice adolescent driver fault in motor vehicle collisions

2021· article· en· W6921096964 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Vision and Imaging
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOddsCollisionOdds ratioHuman factors and ergonomicsFault (geology)Logistic regressionInjury preventionPoison control

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Novice adolescent drivers have a higher propensity to engage in risky driving and are at higher odds of being involved in collisions. Graduated driver licensing programs have been instituted to help novice drivers gain experience while avoiding higher risk driving circumstances. This study examines modifiable risk factors contributing to novice adolescent driver fault in collisions. Police traffic collision report data from municipalities in Alberta for the years 2010–2016, inclusive, were used. Fault in collision was assigned using an automated and previously validated tool for assigning culpability. Factors contributing to novice adolescent (16-19 years of age) fault in collision were examined using multivariable logistic regression. Novice adolescent drivers had higher adjusted odds ratios (aOR) of being at-fault in collision when driving from 01:00-05:00 (aOR = 1.38; 95% Confidence Interval [CI]: 1.26-1.50). Novice adolescent drivers had lower odds of fault when driving with an adult (aOR= 0.62; 95% CI: 0.57-0.68) or a single peer (aOR= 0.87; 95% CI: 0.80-0.94), but higher odds of causing a severe collision with a single peer present (aOR= 2.23; 95% CI: 1.21-4.11). Impairment of the teen driver was reported in 25% of all fatal collisions, and 40% of late-night fatal collisions. The findings support policies that allow driving with a single adult or peer passenger during daytime hours. Driving during late-night hours should be restricted for novice adolescent drivers.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.120
Threshold uncertainty score0.239

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.264 · 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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshareSame topicAdvanced Vision and ImagingFrench-language works237,207