MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2085369115 · doi:10.1037/a0027779

An evaluation of The Great Escape: Can an interactive computer game improve young children's fire safety knowledge and behaviors?

2012· article· en· W2085369115 on OpenAlexaff
Barbara A. Morrongiello, David C. Schwebel, Melissa Bell, Julia Stewart, Aaron L. Davis

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Psychology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInjury Epidemiology and Prevention
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntervention (counseling)Fire safetySafety behaviorsPoison controlInjury preventionHuman factors and ergonomicsSuicide preventionComputer gameOccupational safety and healthPsychologyApplied psychologyComputer securityMedical emergencyMedicineComputer scienceRisk analysis (engineering)PsychiatryMultimedia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Fire is a leading cause of unintentional injury and, although young children are at particularly increased risk, there are very few evidence-based resources available to teach them fire safety knowledge and behaviors. Using a pre-post randomized design, the current study evaluated the effectiveness of a computer game (The Great Escape) for teaching fire safety information to young children (3.5-6 years). METHOD: Using behavioral enactment procedures, children's knowledge and behaviors related to fire safety were compared to a control group of children before and after receiving the intervention. RESULTS: The results indicated significant improvements in knowledge and fire safety behaviors in the intervention group but not the control. CONCLUSION: Using computer games can be an effective way to promote young children's understanding of safety and how to react in different hazardous situations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.242
Threshold uncertainty score0.360

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.461
Teacher spread0.415 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations29
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth PsychologySame topicInjury Epidemiology and PreventionFrench-language works237,207