Developmental differences in family supervision of child injuries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives The goal of the present study was to explore developmental differences in the nature of typical supervision by family members from infancy to adolescence. Methods A phone survey was conducted in Winnipeg Manitoba Canada. Qualifying respondents were parents of a child up to 17 years of age living in the home. Parents were questioned about their typical supervision behaviours (ie, checking on their child) as well as whether a specific injury event occurred within the past 12 months. Results Four hundred respondents were interviewed; of these, 88% reported having a child who sustained an injury within the past 12 months. Examination of injury cases indicated significant developmental differences in typical parent supervision style across age. Parents were most vigilant in their supervision of the youngest children (under age 4) and school-aged children (aged 5–11), reporting seeing and hearing them virtually all of the time (98%). However, parents were significantly more likely to report indirect supervision strategies such as checking occasionally for children aged 12 years and older. Interestingly, supervision by siblings also showed clear developmental trends; sibling supervision was most likely to occur for shorter periods of time (1–4 h) with children aged 12–14 years. A small minority of families (4%) reported using sibling supervision for children under the age of 12. Conclusions There were significant differences in typical family supervision style as a function of child age. Findings suggest supervision style is a modifiable risk factor which may inform future injury prevention 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".