MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1966993054 · doi:10.1136/ip.2003.003624

Do children’s intentions to risk take relate to actual risk taking?

2004· article· en· W1966993054 on OpenAlex
Barbara A. Morrongiello

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueInjury Prevention · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicDecision-Making and Behavioral Economics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsHuman factors and ergonomicsSuicide preventionPoison controlForensic engineeringInjury preventionPsychologyOccupational safety and healthEnvironmental healthRisk analysis (engineering)EngineeringMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Concerns about safety and rigorous ethic standards can make it very difficult to study children's risk taking. The goal of this study was to determine how closely intentions to risk take relate to actual risk taking among boys and girls 6-11 years of age. METHODS: Children initially completed an "intentions to risk take" task. Following administration of several questionnaires they later participated in an actual risk taking task. RESULTS: At all ages, for both boys and girls, intentions to risk take was highly positively correlated with actual risk taking. When discrepancies occurred these were usually of minimal magnitude. CONCLUSIONS: Tasks that tap children's intentions to risk take can serve as proxy indicators of children's actual risk taking.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.970
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.008

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.335 · 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