Evaluation of Safe Kids Week 2001: prevention of scald and burn injuries in young children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate Safe Kids Week 2001-a national public awareness campaign on scald and burn prevention-run by Safe Kids Canada. DESIGN: Random digit dial telephone survey. SETTING: Canada. SUBJECTS: Parents or guardians of children under 9 years. Two groups of parents were compared, those "exposed" to the campaign (defined as having "seen, heard, or read anything about scald and burn prevention during the period 28 May to 3 June 2001") and those "unexposed" to the campaign. INTERVENTION: Burn safety information was disseminated via the media, 5000 retail stores, and 348 community partners across Canada. The campaign emphasized four key messages: (1). Lower your water temperature, hot tap water could burn your child! (2). Make sure your child is safe in the kitchen. (3). Keep hot drinks away from your child. (4). Check your smoke alarms regularly. OUTCOME MEASURES: Change in parental knowledge and behavior. RESULTS: A total of 29871 telephone numbers were called, with a household refusal rate of 27%. Nationally, 14% of parents were exposed to the campaign and 504 parents were interviewed, 251 in the "exposed" group and 253 in the "unexposed" group. Parents exposed to Safe Kids Week 2001 were 1.5-5 times more likely to be aware of key campaign messages, and 2-3 times more likely to test and lower the water heater temperature, compared with unexposed parents. CONCLUSION: Safe Kids Week 2001 reached a significant proportion of parents of young children. In addition, the campaign appeared to increase burn safety knowledge and lead to behavior changes among exposed parents, compared with unexposed parents.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".