MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2128046008 · doi:10.1093/jpepsy/jsh046

Understanding Toddlers' In-Home Injuries: I. Context, Correlates, and Determinants

2004· article· en· W2128046008 on OpenAlexaff
B. A. Morrongiello

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pediatric Psychology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInjury Epidemiology and Prevention
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInjury preventionContext (archaeology)Occupational safety and healthMedicineSuicide preventionPoison controlHuman factors and ergonomicsTemperamentDevelopmental psychologyPsychologyPediatricsMedical emergencyPersonalitySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multimethod strategies (i.e., questionnaires, parents' observations, injury-event recording diaries, telephone and home interviews) were used to study in-home injuries experienced by toddlers over a 3-month period. Cuts, scrapes, and puncture wounds were the most common injuries. The majority of injuries affected children's limbs, and injuries most often occurred in the morning. Boys were injured most often in rooms designated for play, and a majority of their injuries followed from misbehavior. Girls were most often injured in nonplay areas of the home, with the majority of injuries occurring during play activities. Boys experienced more frequent and severe injuries than girls, although girls reacted more than boys to their injuries. Child factors relevant to injury included: risk taking, sensation seeking, and ease of behavior management. Temperament factors did not relate to child injury. Parent factors relevant to child injury included parents' beliefs about control over their child's health, protectiveness, and beliefs about child supervision. Regression analyses revealed that both child (i.e., risk taking) and parent (i.e., protectiveness) factors were significant determinants of child injury.

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)0.006
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 score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.295 · 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

Citations213
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pediatric PsychologySame topicInjury Epidemiology and PreventionFrench-language works237,207