Do infants avoid a traversable slope leading into deep water?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 (Mage = 10.63 ± 1.91 months; Mcrawling = 2.38 ± 1.77 months) and 34 walking infants (Mage = 14.90 ± 2.18 months; Mwalking = 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".