MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2806337024 · doi:10.7939/r3fx74606

Epidemiology of Booster Seat Misuse in Alberta

2015· article· en· W2806337024 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Richard Golonka

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Alberta Library · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAutomotive and Human Injury Biomechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBooster (rocketry)EpidemiologyComputer securityComputer scienceMedicineEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Premature graduation from a booster seat to an adult seat belt places the child at increased risk of injury in the event of a collision, a practice that remains an important public health issue in Canada. Obtaining baseline information that describes the prevalence, nature and determinants of booster seat misuse, as well as the information utilization patterns of parents of booster eligible children is a required first step towards understanding this issue within the Alberta context. Between May 1st and August 31st, 2008 at 67 randomly selected childcare centers in both urban and rural locations, drivers exiting with their children were approached and asked to participate in a parking lot interview and simultaneous in-vehicle restraint inspection. Overall, 31.8% of booster eligible children were improperly restrained. Additionally, 11.4% of booster eligible children were improperly restrained even though they were in the correct seat. While the prevalence of improper seat choice was low as children first became eligible for booster seats (~15%), rates of premature graduation increased to ~50% and higher as the child neared the adult seatbelt transition point boundary of 80lbs. Children at low risk of being seated in the wrong seat included those riding with drivers that were able to successfully recall any child restraint transition point (OR: 0.27; 95%CI: 0.14-0.50; p<0.0001), while children at high risk of being seated in wrong seat included those riding in vehicles with three children (OR: 2.67; 95%CI: 1.2-6.06; p=0.020). Nearly half of all parents of booster eligible children had used a printed resource or a non-physician health professional to obtain information on child restraints, with the non-physician health professional being the most preferred source overall in the survey. By sex, males both utilized and preferred the use of non-health professionals to obtain information while females both utilized and preferred the use of non-physician health professionals. The lowest rates of misuse were seen among drivers who had utilized a physician as an information source, who were also among the most underutilized sources in the survey. Drivers able to use their preferred information source exhibited lower rates of booster seat misuse, regardless of which source was used. Efforts must be made to increase awareness of booster seat transition points, of which, enactment of mandatory booster legislation is crucial. Additionally, avenues for parents to consult directly with non-physician health professionals must remain abundant and accessible as this was the most common pathway for obtaining information. Other less common sources must not however, be overlooked, as nearly all sources exhibited the potential to be correlated with proper use as long as it was also preferred by the parent.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.346
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.213 · 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.

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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of Alberta LibrarySame topicAutomotive and Human Injury BiomechanicsFrench-language works237,207