DANGEROUS ACTIVITIES BY CHILDREN IN GROCERY CARTS: IS ADULT SUPERVISION IMPORTANT?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Systematic observations of 231 children (infancy to 5 years) and the 231 adults accompanying them were made in 29 supermarkets in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. The objective of the study was to describe the influence of two indices of adult supervision in supermarkets on children's activities in shopping carts. Adult supervision was measured by whether the adult ever lost sight of the child and whether the adult was 10 feet or more from the child at any time during a shopping trip. 23% of the children stood on the ends or sides of carts; 49% climbed or tried to climb out of carts. Adults lost sight of a child, whether in or outside the cart, a mean of 3.3 times and were 10 feet away 2.7 times during an average shopping trip. Logistic regression showed that a child rather than an adult pushing a shopping cart through the store was the strongest factor related to standing on ends or sides of carts. Pushing by a child was more likely to occur when adult monitoring was low and when children were older. Climbing out was predicted by the number of times an adult was > 10 feet away, older children, and a child being in the cart basket as opposed to outside the cart or in the child safety seat.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".