Validation of a HOME Injury Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There are no validated observational surveys to assess injury hazards in the home environment. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the reproducibility and reliability of a survey quantifying home injury hazards for children. METHODS: A nested cohort of children in the intervention arm of the Home Observations and Measures of the Environment (HOME) Study trial were analysed. The number and density of hazards were quantified by research assistants in the homes of participants at a baseline visit (BHV) for four high-risk rooms (kitchen, main activity room, child's bathroom and child's bedroom) and stairways and later at an intervention planning visit (IPV) for the four high-risk rooms and entire household. Statistical analysis included Pearson correlation, Bland-Altman analysis of agreement, analysis of variance and kappa statistics. RESULTS: There were 163 households with measurements at BHV and IPV. The number and density of hazards for the four high-risk rooms correlated significantly between BHV and IPV (r = 0.50 and 0.75, respectively). The number and density of hazards for the four high-risk rooms correlated significantly with that for the whole household at the IPV (r = 0.17 and 0.52, respectively). The number of injury hazards was significantly higher in the kitchen than in the other high-risk rooms, whereas density was highest in the child's bathroom. Inter-rater reliability between research assistants, as measured by the kappa statistic, was excellent with a mean of 0.81. CONCLUSIONS: The HOME Injury Survey was a reliable and replicable tool for quantifying residential injury hazards. The density of injury hazards was a more stable and valid measure than the number of injury hazards.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".