Inhibitory control and children's risk for dog bites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Approximately 400 000 US children seek medical attention for dog bites annually (CDC, 2008). A dozen die. Inhibitory control, the capacity to plan and suppress inappropriate approach responses under instruction or in novel situations (Rothbart et al , 2001), is linked to broad child injury risk (Schwebel & Plumert, 1999), but is poorly understood as a risk factor for pediatric dog bites. Method 82 children (mean 4.84 years; SD=0.91, 46% male) were recruited from Birmingham, USA and Guelph, Canada. All lived in homes with 1–3 dogs. Parents completed the inhibitory control scale of the Children's behaviour questionnaire (Rothbart et al , 1994) and items concerning children's history with dogs. Results Inhibitory control correlated to parent-report of children's history of almost being bitten by a dog, r=−0.27; uninhibited children were more likely to have almost experienced dog bites. Inhibitory control also related to parent-report of children's negative experiences with dogs that resulted in crying, r=−0.29, (uninhibited children more likely to have had negative incidents); of children playing rough with dogs, r=−0.31 (uninhibited children playing rough with dogs); and of parent concern that children's behaviour will anger their dog, r=−0.25 (parents of uninhibited children more concerned). Implications Current dog bite prevention strategies focus on dog control and owner education (eg, leash laws, animal training). These strategies help, but identification of child specific risk factors, such as inhibitory control, could aid development of other dog-bite prevention programs.
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 | 0.000 | 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".