Training Older Siblings to Be Better Supervisors: An RCT Evaluating the “<i>Safe Sibs</i>” Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated a new online training program, Safe Sibs, aimed at improving supervision knowledge and behaviors of sibling supervisors. METHOD: Participants included older children (7-11 years) and their younger siblings (2-5 years). A randomized controlled trial design was used, with older siblings randomly assigned to either an intervention or wait-list control group. Before and after either the intervention or wait-list period, older siblings completed measures of supervision knowledge and their supervision behaviors were unobtrusively observed when with their younger sibling. RESULTS: Compared with the control group, the intervention group showed significant improvements in supervision knowledge (child development, knowledge of effective supervision practices, injury beliefs, intervention-specific knowledge) and in some aspects of supervision behavior (frequency of proactive safety behaviors to prevent supervisee access to injury hazards). CONCLUSIONS: Although adult supervision is ideal, this new program can support older children to become more knowledgeable and improved supervisors of younger ones.
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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".