MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2901726754 · doi:10.1016/j.dib.2018.11.079

Dataset and figures on time-series analysis of child restraint policy impact in Chile

2018· article· en· W2901726754 on OpenAlexafffund
José Ignacio Nazif‐Muñoz, Arijit Nandi, Mónica Ruiz‐Casares

Bibliographic record

VenueData in Brief · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGun Ownership and Violence Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanada Research ChairsMcGill University
KeywordsSeries (stratigraphy)Time seriesPsychologyStatisticsMathematicsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The main objective of this data article is to present the data set which depicts the impact of child restraint legislation in Chile and its regions. The population of the study consisted of all car crashes records provided by the national police from 2002 to 2014, which included children aged 0-3. Auto Regressive Integrated Moving Average ARIMA and Poisson model were used to present the association between the dependent and independent variables of interest. When the data are analyzed, it will help to determine the degree of relationship and the strength of significance between child restraint legislation policies enacted in 2005 and 2007, and child occupant fatalities and injuries. The data are related to "Impact of child restraint policies on child occupant fatalities and injuries in Chile and its regions: An interrupted time-series study" (Nazif-Munoz et al., 2018).

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.120

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.008
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.006

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.433
Teacher spread0.377 · 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
GenreDataset

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
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueData in BriefSame topicGun Ownership and Violence ResearchFrench-language works237,207