Babes in Arms: The Safety of Infants and Small Children on Commercial Aircraft
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The death of a lapheld infant in an otherwise survivable crash landing in 2012 in Canada’s north prompted a review of commercial aviation child restraint practice and legislation. Because they can prevent injury and death in survivable aviation occurrences, seatbelts are required for passengers over the age of two during taxi, takeoff, approach and landing, and during periods of turbulence. Carry-on luggage and other items are also required to be stowed during these periods of flight to limit their potential to cause injury. Despite these safeguards, current regulations in North America and elsewhere allow infants and small children to be carried on an adult’s lap without restraint by a seatbelt or other device, exposing them to an unnecessarily high level of risk and depriving them of a level of safety provided to adults and older children. At the same time, estimating the level of risk exposure of these inadequately restrained passengers is difficult because there are no requirements for airlines to collect or report data on the number travelling. An informal survey of four commercial air transport operators revealed that infants and children make up 13 to 14 percent of their total passenger loads. Lessons learned during the evolution of child passenger safety in the road environment must be translated to the commercial aviation setting so that the youngest passengers can be afforded the level of safety they deserve. This can be accomplished through the development of innovative and practical age- and size-appropriate child restraint systems (CRS).
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 | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".