MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2118349028 · doi:10.2466/pr0.2003.92.3.889

Effect of Two Warning Signs on Adult Supervision and Risky Activities by Children in Grocery Shopping Carts

2003· article· en· W2118349028 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.

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychological Reports · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSafety Warnings and Signage
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCartClimbingWarning signsPsychologyEnvironmental healthMedicineEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

398 children, 1 to 6 years of age, and the adults accompanying them in two supermarkets were exposed to one of four treatments. Two experimental treatments featured variations on a warning sign, prompting adults to prevent their children from standing while in the cart seat and basket portions of shopping carts. The two control treatments exposed the adults to advertisements rather than warning signs. No effect was observed of either warning on standing while in cart seats, standing while in baskets, climbing on carts, or standing on the ends or sides of carts; nor was any effect noted on three measures of adult supervision. This lack of effect is attributed to adults' perceptions of the low risk of serious injury to children in carts, their familiarity with carts, the costliness of ensuring compliance with the warnings, and the lack of natural contingencies supporting the prompts. Risky activities by children were related to the child's location in the cart, child's sex, and adult supervision.

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)0.001
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 score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.887

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.316 · 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