Interlock Program Standards for Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
program was primarily voluntary and involved relatively small numbers of drivers who had been convicted of an impaired driving offence. Offenders were offered a reduction in the length of their licence suspension if they participated in the interlock program. An evaluation of the program showed a substantial reduction in the number of subsequent impaired driving offences among those who participated in the interlock program (Beirness et al. 1997; Voas et al. 1999). In July 1999, the Criminal Code of Canada was amended to allow the court to reduce the mandatory period of driving prohibition for a first impaired driving offence from one year to three months provided the offender participated in an alcohol interlock program for the remainder of the original period of prohibition. Subsequent amendments allowed second offenders a reduction in the length of the driving prohibition if they participated in an interlock program. This legislation gave implicit federal approval to interlock programs and provided the impetus for provinces to renew interest in the development and/or expansion of such programs. Today, most provinces and territories have either implemented an ignition interlock program or have announced the intention to do so in the near future. Among the numerous interlock programs that have been implemented throughout the world,
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.065 | 0.014 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".