Ontario first nations child car restraint project evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Injuries are the leading cause of death among First Nations in Canada from 1 to 44 years, Health Canada 2001. The Ontario First Nation population was 175 178 within 133 First Nation communities in 2008. Ontario First Nations identified Motor Vehicle Collisions, Violence including Suicide and Falls, as injury issues and recommended priorities in education, training and research. An Injury Prevention Initiative was established to address issues, implement priorities and develop an Ontario First Nation Injury Prevention Strategy and Action Plan. It is coordinated by the Chiefs in Ontario. The issue of Motor vehicle collisions among Ontario First Nations included concerns about the reported low use of child car restraints. Few interventions to improve restraint use have been implemented and evaluated. Objective The objective of the Ontario First Nations Child Car Restraint Project was to promote child passenger safety and evaluate interventions in five communities. Methods Prior to community based child passenger safety interventions, participants were asked about their knowledge and behaviours related to the use of child car restraints. They then participated in interventions and answered the same questions after the interventions. Results The results reported knowledge increased significantly and a variation in the improvement by community, by gender and by education level. About half of the participants showed no improvement or had decreased scores. Conclusion Community-based interventions can improve knowledge and reported behaviour, but not all participants benefit equally. Interventions will need to be community based, culturally specific and targeted to population needs to improve success.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".