Restraint use and rear seating were associated with fewer serious injuries and deaths for children in motor vehicle crashes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Berg MD, Cook L, Corneli HM, et al . Effect of seating position and restraint use on injuries to children in motor vehicle crashes. Pediatrics2000 Apr; 105 : 831 –5. [OpenUrl][1][Abstract/FREE Full Text][2] QUESTION: Are restraint use and rear seating position associated with lower risks of serious injuries or death for children in motor vehicle crashes? Cohort study. Utah, USA. 5751 children <15 years of age who were passengers in a motor vehicle crash resulting in property damage over US$750 and fatality, admission to hospital, injuries with broken bones, or significant bleeding to any automobile occupant. Children travelling in passenger cars, light trucks, and vans were included. Children were between the ages of birth and 4 years (n=2016), 5 and 11 years (n=2231), and 12 and 14 years (n=1504). For the years 1992–6, motor vehicle crash records from a statewide database, including data on age, restraint use, type of crash, and front or rear seating in the vehicle, were linked by probabilistic methods to hospital discharge records. Restraint use was classified as optimal (a safety seat for ages … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DPediatrics%26rft.stitle%253DPediatrics%26rft.aulast%253DBerg%26rft.auinit1%253DM.%2BD.%26rft.volume%253D105%26rft.issue%253D4%26rft.spage%253D831%26rft.epage%253D835%26rft.atitle%253DEffect%2Bof%2BSeating%2BPosition%2Band%2BRestraint%2BUse%2Bon%2BInjuries%2Bto%2BChildren%2Bin%2BMotor%2BVehicle%2BCrashes%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1542%252Fpeds.105.4.831%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F10742328%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/ijlink?linkType=ABST&journalCode=pediatrics&resid=105/4/831&atom=%2Febnurs%2F3%2F4%2F128.atom
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".