Canadian parents' attitudes and beliefs about bicycle helmet legislation in provinces with and without legislation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to survey Canadian parents on their attitudes and beliefs about bicycle helmet legislation and to compare responses from parents living in provinces with and without legislation. METHODS: A national survey of 1002 parents of children aged under 18 years was conducted. Chi-square tests were used to compare responses from the surveyed parents in the different jurisdictions. RESULTS: Responses from parents living in provinces with legislation (n = 640) and without legislation (n = 362) were as follows: concern for injury (63% vs. 68%, nonsignificant [NS]); believe helmets are effective (98% vs. 98%, NS); child always wears a helmet (74% vs. 69%, NS); support legislation for children (95% vs. 83%, p < .001); support legislation for all ages (85% vs. 75%, p < .001); support police enforcement (83% vs. 76%, p = .003); believe legislation decreases the amount of time their child bicycles (5% vs. 8%, NS). CONCLUSION: Parents are highly supportive of bicycle helmet legislation in Canada. They believe that bicycle helmets are effective and that legislation does not decrease the amount of time a child spends bicycling. There was also a high level of support for legislation across all ages, and for police enforcement.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".