MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7133017889

Program compliance in Ontario's remedial measures program for convicted drinking drivers

2004· dissertation· W7133017889 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Dan B. Rootman

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2004
Typedissertation
Language
FieldMedicine
TopicSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSuicide preventionInjury preventionOccupational safety and healthPoison controlHuman factors and ergonomicsRecidivismSample (material)Driver rehabilitation
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examined both rates and predictors of completion in a mandatory rehabilitation program for individuals convicted of a Driving Under the Influence (DUI) offence. Completion rate, in the sample of male DUI offenders (n = 5409), was determined to be extremely high at 97.3%. In multivariate analysis, non-completers, relative to completers, were found to be younger, to drink more frequently, to be less likely to own a home, to be more likely to live in urban centers, to have two or more lifetime impaired driving convictions and to have an income below $35,000. It was concluded that individuals who do not complete the requirements bear many similarities to individuals at high-risk for persistent drink-drive behavior and its associated negative health consequences. A model for understanding the determinants of non-completion and both the health and treatment implications of such behavior is presented and discussed.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.636
Threshold uncertainty score0.725

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.309 · 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
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpace→Same topicSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→