Motor development as a context for understanding parent safety practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In most industrialized countries, injuries are the leading cause of death for children 1 through 18 years of age. For infants, many injuries occur in the home when they are acquiring new motor milestones. Thus, as infants' motor competencies change with development, creating increasing opportunities for them to interact with hazards, parent safety strategies need to adapt in synchrony in order to sustain a safe ecological niche and prevent injuries. The present study examined parent safety practices when infants were pre-mobile (i.e., capable of sitting independently) and mobile (i.e., capable of walking independently), with the goal being to examine how parents alter these practices in the context of changes in infant motor capabilities, what motivates these parenting changes, and how well they work to prevent injuries. For pre-mobile infants, parents often used devices to constrain their infants' movements and they did so primarily for convenience; mobile infants were seldom constrained. Supervision was a safety strategy applied at both stages, but parents maintained greater proximity for pre-mobile than mobile infants. Environmental modifications were also used for mobile infants. Parental supervision was negatively associated with injuries in the preceding month, whereas environmental modifications were positively associated with injuries. Parents at both stages rated their infants' behaviors as highly predictable but expected them to become less predictable in the near future. However, they also anticipated reducing supervision and increasing teaching during this timeframe. Implications of these findings for injury prevention are discussed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".