Safety of Children in Grocery Carts: Adults' Personal Health and Safety Habits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Observations of 246 children and the adults accompanying them were carried out in supermarkets. Of those arriving and leaving by automobile (n = 194), 36% of adults used safety belts, and 51.1% of children used safety belts or restraining seats. While shopping, 79% of adults lost sight of the children in their care at least once, and 73.2% were 10 feet or more from their children at least once. 48% of children climbed or attempted to climb from carts; 27% stood in carts, and 23.6% handled hazardous products. 24% of adults purchased tobacco products. Poor adult supervision of children was related to adult's nonuse of safety belts and the child's and adult's ages. Climbing from the cart was related in a logistic regression to both poor adult supervision and child's age. Tobacco purchases were related to handling of hazards by children and standing in carts. Child's age and adult's safety belt use related to the restraint of children in vehicles.
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 | 0.000 | 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".