MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2095375318 · doi:10.5993/ajhb.28.s1.5

The Social Context of Childhood Injury in Canada: Integration of the NLSCY Findings

2004· article· en· W2095375318 on OpenAlexaffabout
Hassan Soubhi

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Health Behavior · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInjury Epidemiology and Prevention
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTemperamentDisadvantageDevelopmental psychologyPsychologySocioeconomic statusEarly childhoodLongitudinal studyContext (archaeology)Poison controlInjury preventionHuman factors and ergonomicsLogistic regressionClinical psychologyMedicineSocial psychologyEnvironmental healthPersonalityPopulationGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To integrate findings from cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses of the relationships between childhood injury, child behavior, parenting, family functioning and neighborhood characteristics. METHODS: Logistic modeling of cross-sectional (n = 12,666) and longitudinal (n = 9796) data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth. RESULTS: Consistent correlates of childhood injury across designs included child's age, gender, difficult temperament, aggressive behavior, positive parenting, neighbors' cohesion, neighborhood problems, and socioeconomic disadvantage. CONCLUSION: Contextual influences on childhood injury vary by child's age, temperament and behavior. In early childhood, neighborhood processes of cohesion show protective effects. For older children, neighborhood disadvantage dominates the risk of injuries.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.278

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.008
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.333 · 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 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

Citations18
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Health BehaviorSame topicInjury Epidemiology and PreventionFrench-language works237,207