Absence from childcare for respiratory illness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This population-based study investigated prospectively collected absence for respiratory illness data in two types of formal childcare (centre day care and family day care) in Perth, Western Australia, and factors associated with such absence. METHODS: All centres (n = 11) and 95% of family day care caregivers (n = 130) selected at random from licensing lists agreed to participate. Demographic details were obtained from a parental questionnaire and absences were recorded prospectively. Characteristics of the child and family were described using univariate odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Multivariable analysis including generalized estimating equations was used to investigate having at least one absence for respiratory illness, having two or more absences, and having six or more absences. RESULTS: No statistically significant difference between care types for having had at least one absence episode for respiratory illness (OR 1.37, 95% CI 0.92-2.04) was found. Children who attended care for more days per week (OR 1.40, 95% CI 1.26-1.56) and those in the study for more weeks (OR 1.03, 95% CI 1.01-1.05) were more likely to be absent for respiratory illness. Those children in care for a greater number of hours per day were less likely to be absent (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.80-0.97). Family history of bronchitis was also associated with absence for respiratory illness (OR 1.86, 95% CI 1.32-2.63). CONCLUSIONS: Statistically significant factors which had an impact on absence for respiratory illness were primarily those relating to the time spent in childcare and to family history of bronchitis.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.003 | 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".