Sex Differences in the Relation Between Supervision and Injury Risk Across Motor Development Stages: Transitioning From Infancy Into Toddlerhood
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: Addressing a notable gap in research on injuries during infancy, this longitudinal study examined sex differences in the relationship between parents' typical levels of supervision and infants' injuries across motor development stages. METHOD: Parents were recruited and completed biweekly phone calls about their infant's motor skills. Once the infant was able to sit up independently, then a home visit was scheduled. Applying a participant-event monitoring method, parents were taught to complete diary forms (injury, supervision), which they started doing once the child could move from their seated location on the floor in some way (e.g., roll, crawl). Recordings continued until a month after the child could walk independently. Data (injury, supervision) were averaged within each motor development stage (low, high), and associations across stages were examined. RESULTS: Model testing indicated that supervision level moderated the relation between injury rate across motor development stages, but the strength of this association varied by sex of the child. More intense supervision predicted lower injury rates for girls more so than for boys. CONCLUSIONS: Although the emergence of motor milestones has been associated with increased risk of injury during infancy, the current findings indicate that greater supervision can reduce this risk. However, supervision alone is not as effective to moderate injury risk for boys as it is for girls. Thus, for boys, additional strategies (e.g., hazard removal) may also be warranted to maximize reduction in their risk of injury as they acquire increasing motor skills.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| 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".