Fathers’ Views on Their Financial Situations, Father–Child Activities, and Preventing Child Injuries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Unintentional injuries are a leading public health problem for children, particularly among those living at lower socioeconomic levels. Parents play an important preventive role, and the aim of this study was to examine fathers' views on the role of their family financial situation in preventing children's injuries. In-depth interviews were conducted with 15 fathers of children 2 to 7 years living in western Canada. Questions solicited fathers' views about their financial situation and their child injury prevention efforts. Data analysis was underpinned by masculinity theory and guided by constant comparative grounded theory methods. Findings included that fathers living with fewer financial limitations emphasized use of safety equipment and aligned themselves with provider and protector masculine ideals. Fathers with moderate financial constraint described more child-centered safety efforts and efforts to manage finances. Those facing greatest constraint demonstrated aspects of marginalized masculinities, whereby they acknowledged their economic provider limitations while strongly aligning with the protector role. These findings hold relevance for development of interventions aimed at reducing child injury risk inequities. Taking into account how masculinities may shape their beliefs and practices can inform design of father-centered interventions for men living at different points on the socioeconomic spectrum.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".