MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7033490461

THE RELATIONSHIPS AMONG MENTAL HEALTH, MEDICINAL DRUGS, DRINKING AND DRIVING AND ROAD RAGE AND MOTOR VEHICLE COLLISIONS ON A REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE OF ONTARIO ADULTS

2009· article· en· W7033490461 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueScholarship@Western (Western University) · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHuman auditory perception and evaluation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMoodAnxietyMental healthLogistic regressionPoison controlAntidepressantInjury preventionOccupational safety and healthDistress
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Studies have demonstrated the relationships between motor vehicle collisions and anxiety and/or mood disorders, antidepressant and anxiolytic medication use, drinking and driving, and road rage. It is unclear if symptoms of anxiety and/or mood disorders are directly associated with motor vehicle collisions or if other factors mediate the effect. This thesis examines the effects of psychiatric distress, medication use, drinking and driving, and road rage on motor vehicle collisions. Cross-sectional data from the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health Monitor were used in a hierarchical logistic regression analysis. Demographic predictors, psychiatric distress, and mediating variables were entered in blocks into five models. Findings indicated the relationship between psychiatric distress and motor vehicle collisions was not mediated by antidepressant and/or anxiolytics; however, it was mediated by drinking driving and road rage. The cross-sectional data make the causal nature of these relationships unclear and further research is needed.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.339
Threshold uncertainty score0.681

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.238 · 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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholarship@Western (Western University)Same topicHuman auditory perception and evaluationFrench-language works237,207