MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3190072236 · doi:10.1002/dev.22169

Do infants avoid a traversable slope leading into deep water?

2021· article· en· W3190072236 on OpenAlexaff
Carolina Burnay, Chris Button, Rita Cordovil, David I. Anderson, James L. Croft

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopmental Psychobiology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInjury Epidemiology and Prevention
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeep waterFalling (accident)CliffEnvironmental scienceMedicineGeologyOceanographyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Ramps used to access swimming pools are designed with a shallow slope that affords easy access for all including infants. Locomotor experience has been linked to infants’ avoidance of falling into the water from drop‐offs; however, the effect of such experience on infants’ behavior when a slope is offered to access the water has not been addressed. Forty‐three crawling infants ( M age = 10.63 ± 1.91 months; M crawling = 2.38 ± 1.77 months) and 34 walking infants ( M age = 14.90 ± 2.18 months; M walking = 2.59 ± 1.56 months) were tested on a new Water Slope paradigm, a sloped surface (10°) leading to deep water. No association between infants’ avoidance of submersion and locomotor experience was found. Comparison with the results of infants’ behavior on the water cliff revealed that a greater proportion of infants reached the submersion point on the water slope than fell into the water cliff. Collectively, these results indicate a high degree of specificity in which locomotor experience teaches infants about risky situations. Importantly, sloped access to deep water appears to increase the risk of infants moving into the water thereby making them more vulnerable to drowning.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.376
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0050.002

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.303 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations5
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDevelopmental PsychobiologySame topicInjury Epidemiology and PreventionFrench-language works237,207