Understanding Infants’ In-Home Injuries: Context and Correlates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: Infancy is a time of elevated risk of injury. Past research has focused mostly on the type of injuries, leaving many gaps in knowledge about contextual information that could aid in injury prevention planning. METHODS: In this longitudinal study, a participant-event recording method was used in which mothers tracked their infants' home injuries through three motor development stages (sitting up independently, crawling, and walking). A contextual analysis elucidated where injuries occurred, their type and severity, the infant's and parent's behaviors at the time, if the infant had done the risk behavior before and been injured, the level of supervision, and the nature of any safety precautions parents implemented following these injuries. RESULTS: Injuries occurred as often in play as in nonplay areas and were due to physically-active nonplay activities more so than play activities; mothers were often doing chores. Bumps and bruises were the most common types of injuries. As infants became more mobile, supervision scores declined and injury severity scores increased. Infants had done the risk behavior leading to injury previously about 60% of the time, with higher scores associated with parents implementing fewer preventive actions in response to injury. When mothers did implement a safety precaution, greater injury severity was associated with more modifications to the environment and increased supervision; teaching about safety was infrequent. CONCLUSION: Implications of these results for injury prevention messaging are discussed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".