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 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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.439
Threshold uncertainty score0.530

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.032
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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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