MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7097639959

IMPAIRED DRIVING AND OTHER TRAFFIC OFFENCES- 2002

2003· article· en· W7097639959 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOlder Adults Driving Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConvictionEnforcementHarmLaw enforcementHomicideInjury prevention
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

• In 2002, the rate of police-reported impaired driving incidents decreased by 4 % after a slight increase in 2001. This drop is consistent with the general decrease over the last twenty years. The 2002 rate is 65 % lower than the peak in 1981. • The downward trend since 1981 may be attributable to a number of factors, including changing attitudes with respect to impaired driving, aging of the general population, as well as other enforcement procedures used by the police such as roadside suspensions. • Among provinces, the rate of persons charged with impaired driving ranged from 183 per 100,000 persons aged 16 and older in Newfoundland and Labrador to 618 in Saskatchewan. • With the exception of Quebec which reported no change in the rate of persons charged with impaired driving, all provinces and territories reported decreases in 2002. Among provinces, Newfoundland and Labrador had the largest decrease (-19%) followed by New Brunswick (-12%) and Saskatchewan (-11%). • The rate of persons accused of impaired driving offences was highest among young adults between the ages of 19 and 24 and lowest for those 65 and over. • The rate of overall Criminal Code traffic incidents that involved fatalities or bodily harm has generally declined over the past 15 years. • Almost three-quarters (73%) of court cases involving impaired driving resulted in a conviction and of these 14 % were sentenced to custody. 2 Statistics Canada – Catalogue no. 85-002, Vol. 23, no. 9 Ordering and subscription information All prices exclude sales tax This product, Catalogue no. 85-002-XPE, is published as a standard printed publication at a price of CDN $11.00 per issue and CDN $100.00 for a one-year subscription. ISSN 0715-271X The following additional shipping charges apply for delivery outside Canada:

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)0.002
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.729
Threshold uncertainty score0.545

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.005

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.316 · 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
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicOlder Adults Driving StudiesFrench-language works237,207