Older siblings as potential supervisors of younger siblings: sibling supervisors' recognition of injury‐risk behaviours and beliefs about supervisee risk taking and potential injury outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Past research has shown that increased injury risk for supervisees during sibling supervision is in part due to the supervision practices of older siblings. METHODS: The current study used a photo sorting task to examine older siblings' recognition of injury-risk behaviours, their perceived likelihood of supervisees engaging in, or being injured while engaging in, these behaviours, and awareness of past risk-taking behaviours of supervisees. Mothers completed the same measures and an interview about sibling supervision in the home. RESULTS: Mothers reported that sibling supervision occurred most frequently in the kitchen, living room, and children's bedrooms, for approximately 39 min/day, and that the more time the children spent together in a room, the more frequently the older sibling supervised the younger one. The most common reasons mothers gave for why sibling supervision was allowed included beliefs that the older child knows about hazards and unsafe behaviours and that the child could provide adequate supervision. Photo sort results revealed that older siblings were able to correctly identify about 98% of risk behaviours, with these scores significantly higher than what mothers expected (79%). However, compared with mothers, older siblings were less aware of risk behaviours that their younger siblings had engaged in previously. In addition, mothers rated supervisees as 'fairly likely' both to engage in risk behaviours and to experience an injury if they tried these behaviours, whereas sibling supervisors rated both supervisee risk behaviour and injury outcomes as 'not likely' to occur. CONCLUSION: Older siblings showed good knowledge of hazards but failed to realize that younger children often engage in injury-risk behaviours. Efforts to improve the supervision practices of sibling supervisors need to include changing their perception of supervisees' injury vulnerability and potential injury severity, rather than targeting to increase knowledge of injury-risk behaviours per se.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".