MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2602329765 · doi:10.21834/e-bpj.v2i5.626

Assessment of Parent’s Anxiety within Safety of Children: Primary schools in the upper southern part of Thailand

2017· article· en· W2602329765 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Kirati Sattanon, Prapatpong Upala

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironment-Behaviour Proceedings Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEarly Childhood Education and Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersTrillium Health Partners FoundationThai Health Promotion Foundation
KeywordsLicenseAnxietyPublishingPsychologyMedical educationApplied psychologyMedicinePolitical sciencePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objectives of this paper are to investigate the parental anxiety within the safety of children travel to school and examine the student's self-help abilities. The 1,105 questionnaires were sent to caretakers through pupils. The results indicated that their worries at the high level mainly about the school setting, traffic volume, weather, security management, and facilities. Additionally, these worries are different from socio-economics, family’s characteristic and physical environment. Furthermore, the gender, family incomes and grade of students cause a greater level of safety concern. Finally, the needs to improve the school are (1) Traffic management, (2) Safety Zone and (3) Facilities.Keywords: Anxiety; Safety; Parent; Children; Kindergarten.ISSN: 2398-4287© 2017. The Authors. Published for AMER ABRA by e-International Publishing House, Ltd., UK. This is an open access article under the CC BYNC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Peer–review under responsibility of AMER (Association of Malaysian Environment-Behaviour Researchers), ABRA (Association of Behavioural Researchers on Asians) and cE-Bs (Centre for Environment-Behaviour Studies), Faculty of Architecture, Planning & Surveying, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Malaysia.

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)0.003
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.448

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.264 · 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

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironment-Behaviour Proceedings JournalSame topicEarly Childhood Education and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207