MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2090641206 · doi:10.1017/s0032247409990180

‘Don't be scared, you don't have to wear your lifejacket’: using the theory of planned behaviour to understand lifejacket usage in Tuktoyaktuk, Northwest Territories, Canada

2009· article· en· W2090641206 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenuePolar Record · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInjury Epidemiology and Prevention
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Ottawa
FundersHealth Canada
KeywordsTheory of planned behaviorPromotion (chess)GeographyPopulationPsychologySocioeconomicsSociologyPolitical scienceDemographyControl (management)Management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Water related activities result in a large number of fatalities annually throughout Canada, especially in the Canadian north, where drowning rates are up to ten times the national average. This study used participant observation, semi-structured interviews, and archival research to understand why residents of Tuktoyaktuk, Northwest Territories (NWT) rarely wear lifejackets. Three themes emerged. Firstly residents largely perceive lifejackets to be inaccessible, secondly drownings are attributed to factors other than failing to wear a lifejacket and thirdly lifejacket use is not encouraged by important individuals in the community. It is suggested that successful lifejacket promotion for this population requires drowning prevention programmes that move away from simplistic approaches that encourage people to wear lifejackets and instead must utilise an approach that addresses each component of the theory of planned behaviour (TPB).

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.303
Threshold uncertainty score0.904

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.268 · 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