Understanding gender differences in childhood injuries: Examining longitudinal relations between parental reactions and boys’ versus girls’ injury-risk behaviors.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this longitudinal study was to examine gender differences in children's hazard-directed behaviors when the parent was absent and determine whether parent reactions when present differentially influences boys' and girls' subsequent behaviors. METHOD: Children and parents were video recorded in their home when a contrived burn hazard ('Gadget') was within view and reach of the child and the parent was sometimes present and absent. Videos were coded for teaching- and discipline-focused reactions by parents when children approached the Gadget in the parent's presence and children's hazard-directed behaviors when the parent was absent. Data were gathered monthly for a period of up to 6 months. RESULTS: Multilevel regression analyses examining temporal relationships between parents' reactions (teaching, discipline) and children's hazard-directed behaviors when the parent was absent revealed significant gender differences. For boys, reductions in hazard-directed behaviors over time were predicted from high teaching or low discipline reactions, with low teaching and high discipline reactions maintaining injury-risk behaviors over time. For girls, reductions in hazard-directed behaviors over time were predicted from low teaching or high discipline reactions, with high teaching and low discipline reactions maintaining injury-risk behaviors over time. CONCLUSION: To moderate young boys' injury-risk behaviors, caregivers should avoid frequent discipline-focused reactions in favor of frequent teaching when the child engages in injury-risk behaviors. For girls, however, frequent discipline-focused reactions reduced injury-risk behaviors over time more effectively than frequent teaching-focused reactions that sustained girls' interest in the hazard. Implications for injury prevention are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".