Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the profile of children's injuries resulting from television tipovers and to evaluate the potential in a paediatric health centre for television sets to be tipped by young children. DESIGN: The present study was conducted by case report review, a retrospective audit of a regional subset of the Canadian Hospitals Injury Reporting and Prevention Program database, and prospective testing of all child-accessible television sets for potential tipping using a static model of a climbing child. SETTING: Children attending the emergency department of a regional paediatric health centre who reported injuries resulting from a television tipover to the Canadian Hospitals Injury Reporting and Prevention Program were studied. All child-accessible television sets within the same regional paediatric health centre were included in the study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main study outcome measures were the demographics and profile of television tipover injuries encountered, and the failure rate of child-accessible televisions to maintain stability when tested using a static model of a climbing child (four years of age at the 90th weight percentile). RESULTS: At least 104 children reported injuries related to televisions tipovers between 1990 and 2002. The majority occurred in two-to four-year-old children, and 61% occurred in boys. The most common areas to be injured were the head and neck. Within the hospital, 90% of child-accessible televisions were tippable by children four years of age or younger. CONCLUSIONS: Television tipovers have the potential to cause significant childhood injuries. Because television sets were not safely maintained within one paediatric health centre, one can only speculate about television safety in homes. Parents need to be educated about this injury risk, and standards for the anchoring of televisions are needed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".