MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2060094457 · doi:10.1177/0272431611414062

Early Risk Behaviors and Adolescent Injury in 25 European and North American Countries

2011· article· en· W2060094457 on OpenAlexaff
Margaretha de Looze, William Pickett, Quinten A. W. Raaijmakers, Emmanuel Kuntsche, Anne Hublet, Saoirse Nic Gabhainn, Þóroddur Bjarnason, Michal Molcho, Wilma Vollebergh, Tom ter Bogt

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Early Adolescence · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInjury Epidemiology and Prevention
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersUniversitetet i Bergen
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Sexual intercourseDemographyLogistic regressionInjury preventionPsychologyOdds ratioPoison controlSuicide preventionMedicineOccupational safety and healthHuman factors and ergonomicsDevelopmental psychologyClinical psychologyEnvironmental healthGeographyPopulationInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Injury is a leading cause of mortality and morbidity among adolescents in developed countries. Jessor and Jessor’s Problem Behavior Theory suggests an association between risk behaviors (e.g., smoking, drunkenness, cannabis use, and sexual intercourse) and adolescent injury. The present study examined whether early engagement in risk behaviors would predict injury at age 15. It also examined whether such associations were consistent in strength across countries. Based on the data from the 2005-2006 Health Behaviour in School-aged Children (HBSC) survey, a multigroup logistic regression analysis was conducted. Our findings demonstrate a cross-national consistent association (with relative odds of injury rising to 1.85; 95% CI: 1.70-2.02). Based on the study findings, early engagement in risk behaviors was considered a marker for a trajectory that places adolescents at higher risk for physical injury, independent of their national context.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations49
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Early AdolescenceSame topicInjury Epidemiology and PreventionFrench-language works237,207