MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2049937839 · doi:10.1017/s0317167100008404

Evaluation of ThinkFirst for Kids Injury Prevention Curriculum for Grades 7/8

2009· article· en· W2049937839 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Michael Vassilyadi, Cheryll Duquette, Mohammed F. Shamji, Shari Orders, Simon Dagenais

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInjury Epidemiology and Prevention
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioUniversity of Ottawa
FundersTroms og Finnmark FylkeskommuneUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsCurriculumTest (biology)MedicinePsychologyMedical educationFocus groupPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Head injury causes substantial morbidity and mortality in children. The ThinkFirst For Kids (TFFK) program improves knowledge of safe behaviours in kindergarten to Grade 6 students. METHODS: This study evaluated the TFFK curriculum for grade 7/8 students. Knowledge acquisition was assessed quantitatively by an injury prevention test at baseline, at curriculum completion, and six weeks later. Participant experiences and behaviours were explored qualitatively by interviews and focus groups. RESULTS: Students (n=204) and teachers (n=6) from four schools participated in this study. Test scores improved from baseline (26.48+/-0.17, n=204), to completion (27.75+/-0.16, n=176), to six weeks post-completion (28.65+/-0.13, n=111) (p<0.05). Most students reported their decision-making and participation in risky behaviors was altered by the curriculum. INTERPRETATION: The TFFK curriculum may promote education about head injury prevention among Grade 7/8 students, with a suggestion of long-term knowledge retention. The curriculum was well-received and may be suitable to reduce risky behavior and injuries in children.

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)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.590
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.304 · 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.

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

Citations7
Published2009
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences NeurologiquesSame topicInjury Epidemiology and PreventionFrench-language works237,207