MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2095485106 · doi:10.1080/15389588.2013.867483

Child Restraint Use in Canadian Provinces With and Without Legislation in 2010

2013· article· en· W2095485106 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueTraffic Injury Prevention · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAutomotive and Human Injury Biomechanics
Canadian institutionsTransport CanadaHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of WindsorWestern UniversitySickKids FoundationInstitute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegislationPoison controlOccupational safety and healthHuman factors and ergonomicsInjury preventionSuicide preventionEnvironmental healthForensic engineeringBusinessEngineeringTransport engineeringMedicinePolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: When used correctly, child safety seats reduce the risk of injury to a child passenger compared to seat belts. The objectives of this study are to (1) describe restraint use among Canadian children ages 4-8 years in 2010; (2) compare child safety seat use between provinces with new legislation (post-2006), old legislation (pre-2006), and without legislation; and (3) compare child safety seat use rates from 2006 to 2010. METHODS: Roadside observational surveys of child restraint use were performed in 2006 and 2010 using a nationally representative stratified sample. Proportions of restraint use, correct use (i.e., child safety seats and booster seats) in 4- to 8-year-old children was examined between 3 groups: provinces with new legislation (i.e., child safety seat legislation that included implementation of specific legislation for booster seat use for child passengers ages 4-8 years), old legislation, and no legislation. RESULTS: There were 4048 children observed as passengers in motor vehicles. In provinces with new legislation, 84 percent (95% confidence interval [CI], 72.2-90.8) of children were restrained compared to 94.9 percent (95% CI, 93.0-96.7) in provinces with old legislation, and 81.8 percent (95% CI, 77.3-86.3) in provinces without legislation. Correct use of child restraint was 54.1 percent (95% CI, 48.0-60.3) in provinces with new legislation, 29.5 percent (95% CI, 25.9-33.2) in provinces with old legislation, and 52.0 percent (43.0-61.0) in provinces without legislation in 2010. CONCLUSION: The findings from this study suggest that child safety seat legislation has an impact on restraint use in Canada. Despite the increase in rates of child safety seat use in provinces with new legislation and stable rates in provinces with old legislation, use rates remain low. Injury prevention strategies including further surveillance, interventions, and enforcement of restraint use in children are important to decrease motor vehicle related injury and death.

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)0.000
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 score0.508
Threshold uncertainty score0.955

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.246 · 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