Parent/caregiver perceptions and practice of child water safety at the beach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lack of appropriate supervision is a persistent risk factor in most child drowning incidents. The risks to young children associated with swimming at beaches place a premium on close and constant supervision by caregivers. However, little is known about caregiver supervisory practice and perceptions of child water safety at beaches. Adults (N = 769) in charge of children under 10 years of age were surveyed at 18 New Zealand beaches during the summer of 2007 to ascertain caregiver perceptions of their water safety skills, risk of drowning for their child and their supervisory behaviours. Most parents (78%) estimated that they could swim 100 m non-stop in open water, almost one half (48%) had been certified in cardio-pulmonary resuscitation and one quarter (24%) had received some rescue/lifesaving training. More than one quarter (29%) failed to provide appropriate supervision for their under 5-year olds at the beach. Almost half (46%) of caregivers did not provide close supervision for their 5-9 year olds. Although there were no significant differences between males and female self-reported supervision, male caregivers were more likely to rate their 5-9 year olds as good swimmers and less likely to estimate a high risk of drowning for that age group. To address shortcomings in caregiver supervision, it is suggested that water safety education initiatives emphasise how to provide close and constant supervision of young children at beaches. Furthermore, a focus on the necessity for caution when estimating risk and ability to cope with open water conditions is recommended.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".