MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2069816062 · doi:10.1080/1059924x.2012.655120

The Role of Child and Adolescent Development in the Occurrence of Agricultural Injuries: An Illustration Using Tractor-Related Injuries

2012· review· en· W2069816062 on OpenAlexaff
David C. Schwebel, William Pickett

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agromedicine · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgriculture and Farm Safety
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntervention (counseling)TractorHuman factors and ergonomicsInjury preventionPoison controlOccupational safety and healthAgricultureSuicide preventionChild developmentPsychologyFocus groupMedicineEnvironmental healthDevelopmental psychologyEngineeringBusinessPsychiatryGeographyMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Agricultural settings are dangerous, especially for children. This article focuses on child and adolescent development, and how development might influence children's safety in the occurrence of pediatric farm injuries. The authors focus especially on one of the most traumatic causes of pediatric farm injury, those associated with tractor operation. The roles of physical, perceptual, cognitive, and social development are reviewed and discussed, as are relevant sociocultural factors. Following review of developmental risks for child injury in agricultural settings, the authors present a case study of a fatal youth tractor injury and provide illustrations of the child development factors that may have contributed to the death. The authors conclude with a discussion of the implications of developmental aspects of pediatric agricultural injury for behaviorally oriented intervention strategies, including public policy.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations26
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of AgromedicineSame topicAgriculture and Farm SafetyFrench-language works237,207