0094 An investigation of risk & protective factors for school-aged child injuries: the influence of siblings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Statement of purpose Previous research has identified a variety of risk and protective factors for injuries in school-aged children, including age, sex, number of siblings, and child risk taking behaviors. The goal of the present study was to go beyond these known risk factors and investigate if and how siblings influence the frequency and severity of childhood injuries. Methods/Approach Seventy-nine families with two school-aged children aged seven and ten years old on average were recruited from the community; 54% were female. Parents were 38 years old on average and self-identified as multiracial (8%), Indigenous (18%), and European-Canadian (75%); 92% were female. Parents reported on the frequency of minor and medically-attended child injuries within the past three months. They also reported on child risk-taking behavior and sibling supervision. Children reported on warmth and hostility in their sibling relationships. Results Larger sibling spacing but not number of siblings was significantly associated with more minor injuries for younger siblings. Boys with older brothers experienced significantly more medically-attended injuries than boys or girls with older sisters. Greater risk taking was related to significantly more minor injuries for both younger and older siblings. Younger but not older sibling minor injuries were negatively related to sibling warmth and positively related to sibling hostility. Sibling supervision was not associated with injury frequency or severity, but was negatively related to warmth reported by both younger and older siblings. Conclusions In addition to well-known demographic characteristics, siblings played an influential role in both elevating and mitigating injury risk for school-aged children, with older siblings having a greater influence on safety. Significance Siblings are often not taken into account in injury research, their influence on child safety is understudied. The present study highlighted some of the important aspects of sibling influence that could inform future injury prevention programs.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".