MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7093305092 · doi:10.3390/app152111362

Gender Differences in DUI Crash Injury Severity: A Partially Constrained Random-Parameter Logit Model Analysis

2025· article· en· W7093305092 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Sciences · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicChemical Reactions and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCrashDriving under the influenceLogistic regressionLogitDrunk driversPoison controlHuman factors and ergonomicsInjury prevention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Driving under the influence (DUI) has long been recognized as a major contributor to traffic accidents. However, the factors influencing the severity of crashes in DUI situations may vary significantly between genders due to physiological and psychological differences. This study analyzes DUI single-vehicle crash data from Texas to construct a random-parameter logit model that captures gender-specific differences in crash severity. A partially constrained method is employed to better identify these gender-specific factors, emphasizing the importance of separately assessing DUI behavior for males and females in traffic safety analysis. The results reveal notable gender differences in the severity of injuries from DUI crashes. A comprehensive evaluation was conducted from four perspectives: driver characteristics, vehicle features, roadway conditions, and environmental factors. Out-of-sample simulations provided additional insights, showing that even at lower blood alcohol concentration (BAC) levels, the probability of severe injury increases significantly. In conclusion, this study not only uncovers the gender-specific mechanisms behind DUI crash severity but also offers valuable empirical evidence for integrating gender considerations into future traffic safety policies and interventions.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.247 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied SciencesSame topicChemical Reactions and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207