Associations between risk behavior and injury and the protective roles of social environments: an analysis of 7235 Canadian school children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The social etiology of adolescent injury remains poorly understood. The Population Health Framework suggests that the etiology of adolescent injury involves interactions between individual risk factors and the natures of adolescent environments. The purpose of this study was to apply this framework to examination of relationships between adolescent risk taking and injury, and the potential modifying effects of supportive home and school environments. METHODS: The analysis was conducted in a representative sample of 7235 males and females (10-16 years old) from Canada. Results were based on records from the 2001/02 World Health Organization Health Behaviour in School-Aged Children Survey. Individual items and factor analytically derived scales were used to describe and then model injury outcomes, risk behaviors, perceived home, and school climates, and the relationships between these variables in a theory driven etiological analysis. RESULTS: Adolescents with supportive home and school environments experienced lower relative odds of engagement in risk taking behavior and lower relative odds of injury. Gradients were observed between the extent of adolescent risk taking and the occurrence of injury. Interactions were not observed between risk taking behavior, perceived support in home and school climates, and injury. CONCLUSIONS: Risk taking is common among adolescents and plays a role in the etiology of injury. Supportive social climates clearly protect adolescents from engaging in these behaviors, and also the occurrence of some forms of injury. However, once an adolescent chooses to engage in risk taking behaviour, a supportive environment may not protect them from 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".