Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is the 50th anniversary of the first child-resistant closure (CRC), the Palm N’ Turn, which was patented in 1967.1 This gives pause for reflection upon the strengths and shortcomings of this poison prevention intervention. The CRC is the cornerstone of the US Poison Prevention Packaging Act (PPPA) of 1970.2 Within the PPPA is a schedule of hazardous substances (drugs and consumer products) requiring a CRC. Over the years, drugs and consumer products have been added to this schedule. The criteria for certification as a CRC are precise and are defined in the PPPA. Its thrust is that opening the container within a defined period of time must be significantly difficult for children less than 5 years old but not difficult for normal adults. The CRC is Canada’s gift to injury prevention. Henri Breault MD, the director of the poison control centre in Windsor Ontario was disillusioned by 10 years of failure of education to reduce exploratory ingestion (formerly referred to as accidental ingestion or unintentional ingestion) by young children.3 The concept of a CRC had been discussed in the literature4 5 but had not gained traction. In 1964, Dr Breault founded the Ontario Association to Control Poisonings (OACP), an advocacy group consisting of physicians, pharmacists, industry and poison prevention advocates. The purpose of the OACP was to develop a CRC for medication containers. They raised US$1500 which was used as prize money for a contest requesting CRC designs. There were over 200 submissions and the winner was Peter Hedgewick’s Palm N’ Turn. Mr Hedgewick had considerable expertise with custom plastic moulding and was a designer and manufacturer of unique tools for the automobile parts industry. He patented the Palm N’ Turn in 1967.1 Dr Breault then undertook a study of this CRC. The pharmacists …
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.109 | 0.029 |
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".