Supervision of Children in Agricultural Settings: Implications for Injury Risk and Prevention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Farm environments pose unique safety hazards for children. With this in mind, this paper raises several points about how caregiver supervision influences risk of childhood injuries. First, research suggests that it is not the absence of a supervisor per se but the poorer quality of supervision that leads to pediatric injuries on farms, particularly for young children who behave in unpredictable ways at a time when caregivers are likely to be distracted with farm work. Second, research suggests that "adequate" supervision varies with context. In nonfarm contexts, continuous attention and close proximity (i.e., being within arm's reach) constitute an adequate level of supervision to ensure young children's safety. In agricultural contexts, attention and continuity are also relevant. However, close proximity is less beneficial because this often results in exposing children to hazards (animals, dangerous equipment) if the supervisor is working. Third, research suggests that in both agricultural and nonagricultural contexts, the extent to which supervision is associated with injury varies with a child's developmental level. Specifically, supervision seems to play a more primary role in moderating injury risk for young children (preschool), and this influence decreases as children age and increasingly independent are allowed to engage in more activities without a supervisor present. Building on these findings, practical recommendations are provided to enhance the safety of children on farms and future research directions are discussed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".