MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2014921151 · doi:10.1037/a0021308

Examining the impact of traffic environment and executive functioning on children's pedestrian behaviors.

2011· article· en· W2014921151 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Benjamin K. Barton, Barbara A. Morrongiello

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopmental Psychology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic and Road Safety
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsPedestrianPsychologySAFERPedestrian crossingPoison controlInjury preventionCognitionDevelopmental psychologyHuman factors and ergonomicsSuicide preventionTransport engineeringMedicineComputer securityPsychiatryComputer scienceEnvironmental healthEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The process of integrating visual information and planning a safe crossing is cognitively demanding for many young children. We assessed relations between traffic characteristics, aspects of children's executive functioning (EF), and pedestrian behavior, with the aim being to determine whether well-developed EF would predict safer pedestrian behaviors beyond the contributions of child demographic and traffic environment factors. Using the pretend road method, we studied a sample of 83 children aged 6-9 in a series of 5 crossing trials beside a real road in response to actual traffic conditions. Traffic characteristics and pedestrian behaviors were observed and measured across crossing trials. Both traffic characteristics and EF, most notably cognitive efficiency, were strongly related to children's pedestrian crossing behaviors. Traffic characteristics were also found to interact with children's ability to monitor their crossing performance. Examining developmental influences in pedestrian injury etiology broadens researchers' knowledge of and ability to prevent injuries by moving beyond describing what happens to children and examining why pedestrian injuries occur.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.497
Threshold uncertainty score0.427

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.211 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations50
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDevelopmental PsychologySame topicTraffic and Road SafetyFrench-language works237,207