An exploratory study of parents' use and knowledge of car safety seats in Beijing, China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As the number of vehicles in China rapidly increases and there is no child safety seat law, the issue of road safety for children is a growing concern. The purpose of this study was to examine parents' use and knowledge of car safety seats in Beijing, China. Using a convenience sample of 843 parents, survey results showed that only 64.8% of parents used a safety restraint for their children; the remaining 35.2% of children, of which most were toddlers or school-aged children, travelled unrestrained in vehicles. Among parents who used a safety restraint, only 24.2% were using it correctly based on the child's age (for infants), weight and height. Common reasons for not using a safety seat included difficulty finding safety seats (56.6%), cost (26.1%), and a preference to hold the child (18.1%). Moreover, a large proportion of parents prematurely transitioned their child from a safety seat to seat belt. The results highlight the need to develop injury prevention interventions that communicate the benefits and encourage the use of child safety restraints in China.
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".