Developing guidelines for intervention to reduce risk of low-speed vehicle run-overs of young children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Australia, research suggests that up to one quarter of child pedestrian hospitalisations result from driveway run-over incidents (Pinkney et al., 2006). In Queensland, these numbers equate to an average of four child fatalities and 81 children presenting at hospital emergency departments every year (The Commission for Children, Young People and Child Guardian). National comparison shows that these numbers represent a slightly higher per capita rate (23.5% of all deaths). To address this issue, the current research was undertaken with the aim to develop an educative intervention based on data collected from parents and caregivers of young children. Thus, the current project did not seek to use available intervention or educational material, but to develop a new evidence-based intervention specifically targeting driveway run-overs involving young children. To this end, general behavioural and environmental changes that caregivers had undertaken in order to reduce the risk of injury to any child in their care were investigated. Broadly, the first part of this report sought to: • develop a conceptual model of established domestic safety behaviours, and to investigate whether this model could be successfully applied to the driveway setting; • explore and compare sources of knowledge regarding domestic and driveway child safety; and • examine the theoretical implications of current domestic and driveway related behaviour and knowledge among caregivers. The aim of the second part of this research was to develop and test the efficacy of an intervention based on the findings in the first part of the research project. Specifically, it sought to: • develop an educational driveway intervention that is based on current safety behaviours in the domestic setting and informed by existing knowledge of driveway safety and behaviour change theory; and • evaluate its efficacy in a sample of parents and caregivers.
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 | 0.036 | 0.070 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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".