Watching Parents, Watching Kids: Water Safety Supervision of Young Children at the Beach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The number of children who drown at open-water locations such as surf beaches increases with age. In New Zealand, from 1980-2002, 70% of 5-9-year-olds (n = 71) drowned in open water locations. Little is known about parental supervision of young children at beaches. The purpose of this paper is to report on exploratory observations of caregiver supervision of children at the beach. Two experienced lifeguards were trained to observe caregiver water safety supervisory behaviors at 18 popular beaches in the summer of 2006/7. Of the 544 observations made, one quarter (24%) of children in the water were not considered to be adequately supervised. Most supervision (74%) was done by a single person irrespective of the number of children under their control. Of the 130 caregivers failing to provide adequate supervision, one third (30%) lay on the beach sunbathing, one quarter (28%) talked to others, and one quarter (27%) used cell phones. In light of these findings, recommendations about further research and safe supervision practices by parents/caregivers are suggested. Water safety organizations need to develop and promote guidelines for the safe supervision of young children at beaches.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".