Gendered analysis of fathers injury prevention attitudes and practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction How fathers engage in risk-taking and safety-related behaviours with their young children plays an important role in injury prevention. Concepts addressed through this gendered analysis included: negotiation of gender roles related to responsibility for child safety, consensus on acceptable risk and fathers perceptions of masculinity. Purpose To explore fathers perceptions of gender roles and parental beliefs about safety. To explore the impact of dominant masculine ideals on fathers safety-related attitudes and practices. Method Interviews with fathers of children aged 2–7 years in British Columbia, Canada probed their roles and activities with children, perceptions of risk taking and overprotection, parental responsibilities for child safety. Grounded theory methods guided data analysis. Results A diverse sample of 32 fathers was interviewed. Fathers identified themselves as protectors with responsibilities for child safety, but focused on outdoor versus home arenas. Many fathers described themselves as more accepting of risks than mothers, though the opposite was also true for some. Mothers were a major source of comfort after injury while fathers focused on assessing seriousness of the injury and teaching. For some fathers, physical consequences of injuries were celebrated as battle scars. For others, children's needs for comforting were dominant. Conclusion The findings promote understanding of fathers perceptions of their roles as protectors within the gendered family. Conceptions of masculinity provide a way of understanding fathers beliefs around injury prevention. Helpful ideals can be harnessed for positive action while others need to be considered in designing programmes.
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".