P4.008 Beyond supervision: linking sibling relationship quality and school-aged child injuries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background While family size and sibling supervision have both been shown to influence child injury risk, the role of sibling relationship quality in child injury has not been investigated. Our goal was to investigate potential linkages between child injuries and the quality of sibling relationships. Methods Seventy-nine families with two school-aged children aged seven and ten years on average were recruited from the community; 54% were female. Children reported on the quality of their sibling relationships and parents reported on the frequency of minor child injuries within the past three months, as well as their supervision attitudes. Results Younger siblings in antagonistic relationships characterized by high hostility and low warmth incurred significantly more minor injuries; this was especially the case when age spacing between siblings was larger. Higher parental confidence in younger siblings was significantly related to fewer minor injuries for older, but not younger siblings. Conclusions Sibling relationship quality played a significant role in injury risk for school-aged children, particularly when sibling age spacing was larger. Therefore, the quality of sibling relationships should be taken into account in future research, as well as in home injury prevention programs. Parental confidence in younger siblings was linked to fewer older sibling injuries, underlining the importance of understanding the interconnected nature of family dynamics on child injury. Learning Outcomes Antagonistic sibling relationships were significantly associated with more minor injuries for younger siblings, especially when sibling age spacing was larger. Parental confidence in younger siblings was related to fewer older sibling minor injuries.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.000 |
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.
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".