MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2026393421 · doi:10.1177/1557988312462739

Men on Fathering in the Context of Children’s Unintentional Injury Prevention

2012· article· en· W2026393421 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Mariana Brussoni, Genevieve Creighton, Lise Olsen, John L. Oliffe

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Men s Health · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInjury Epidemiology and Prevention
Canadian institutionsChild and Family Research InstituteSpinal Cord Injury BCUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchInstitute of Gender and HealthMichael Smith Health Research BCChild and Family Research Institute
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Injury preventionSuicide preventionChild protectionDevelopmental psychologyOccupational safety and healthMedicinePoison controlHuman factors and ergonomicsRisk preventionPsychologyMedical emergencyNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Injuries are a leading cause of death for children, and parental safety behaviors are fundamental to child injury prevention. Fathers' perspectives are largely absent. Our novel research connects masculinities, fathering, and childhood injury. Sixteen fathers of children aged 2 to 7 years in two Canadian urban settings participated in photo-elicitation interviews detailing activities they enjoyed with their children and concerns regarding child safety. Participants described how elements of risk, protection, and emotional connection influenced their approach to fathering as it related to injury prevention. Most men considered engaging children in risk as key to facilitating development and described strategies for protecting their children while engaging in risk. Many men identified how the presence of an emotional connection to their children allowed them to gauge optimal levels of risk and protection. There exists a tremendous opportunity to work with fathers to assist in their efforts to keep their children safe.

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)0.005
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 score0.327
Threshold uncertainty score0.202

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.347 · 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

Citations28
Published2012
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Men s HealthSame topicInjury Epidemiology and PreventionFrench-language works237,207