How do fathers access child safety information?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Injury is the leading cause of death for children over the age of one. Prevention methods such as providing parents with information injury risks and prevention strategies can be an effective way to help change risk behaviour and decrease the chance of an injury event. Purpose To gain an understanding on father's behaviours in regard to accessing information on childhood safety. Method Interviews for this qualitative study were carried out with fathers of children aged 2–7 years in British Columbia, Canada. Interview questions explored whether fathers were likely to access information on child safety issues; what type of information they were likely to search for; what types of resources they used or would like to use. Results In total, 32 fathers were interviewed. Of the fathers that did look for information on child safety, most reported accessing the internet as a main resource for child safety. Many fathers reported issues around trusting sources and accessing quality information over the internet. Other common responses were pamphlets, community centres and consulting health experts. Conclusion Fathers use specific portals of information to access information on child safety. In order to ensure that parents are suitably informed on prevention strategies, health professionals need to consider the role and use of the internet, the design of pamphlets and the use of language in the development of materials as well as the development of dissemination strategies.
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 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".