MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2796425527 · doi:10.1111/cdep.12287

Preventing Unintentional Injuries to Young Children in the Home: Understanding and Influencing Parents’ Safety Practices

2018· article· en· W2796425527 on OpenAlexaff
Barbara A. Morrongiello

Bibliographic record

VenueChild Development Perspectives · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInjury Epidemiology and Prevention
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntervention (counseling)Occupational safety and healthInjury preventionSuicide preventionChild safetyHuman factors and ergonomicsBest practicePsychologyPoison controlMedicineNursingMedical emergencyEngineeringPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Unintentional injuries are the leading cause of preventable deaths for children in most industrialized countries. In this article, I consider research on how parents prevent home injuries to children under 6 years and discuss an intervention aimed at improving parents’ home-safety practices. Parents of young children use three types of home-safety practices: teaching about safety, modifying the environment, and supervising. Relying predominantly on teaching increases young children's risk of injury, whereas modifying the environment and supervising protect children and predict fewer injuries. Drawing on evidence about factors that motivate parents’ safety practices, an intervention was developed to improve supervision: The Supervising for Home Safety program positively changed parents’ appraisals about injury and supervision practices. Developing evidence-based injury-prevention programs is an effective way to address this national public-health issue.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations41
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChild Development PerspectivesSame topicInjury Epidemiology and PreventionFrench-language works237,207