MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2171088705 · doi:10.1093/jpepsy/jsj001

The Stamp-in-Safety Program: A Behavioral Intervention to Reduce Behaviors that Can Lead to Unintentional Playground Injury in a Preschool Setting

2005· article· en· W2171088705 on OpenAlexaff
David C. Schwebel, Adam L. Summerlin, Marjorie L. Bounds, Barbara A. Morrongiello

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pediatric Psychology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInjury Epidemiology and Prevention
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersNational Center for Injury Prevention and ControlDepartment of Psychology, University of Alabama at Birmingham
KeywordsIntervention (counseling)Observational studyInjury preventionPoison controlHuman factors and ergonomicsSuicide preventionOccupational safety and healthBehavior changeApplied psychologyPsychologyMedicineMedical emergencyPsychiatrySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To introduce and evaluate the Stamp-in-Safety program, a behavioral intervention designed to increase the quality of supervision by teachers on preschool playgrounds and to reduce the risk of unintentional child playground injury. METHODS: A quasi-experimental time series design was used, with observational techniques, to evaluate behavior on the playground before, during, and after the intervention as well as during a 6-month post-intervention assessment. RESULTS: Both applied behavior analysis techniques and inferential statistics suggest that the Stamp-in-Safety program resulted in behavioral changes likely to reduce the risk of child injury on the playgrounds of childcare centers. CONCLUSION: Results indicate promise for the Stamp-in-Safety program as a low-cost, easily implemented intervention to reduce pediatric playground injury risk at childcare centers. Suggestions for future research are offered.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.286
Threshold uncertainty score0.557

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.393 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations45
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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