A Pilot Randomized Trial Evaluating the <i>Cool 2 Be Safe Junior Playground Safety Program</i> for Preschool Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Unintentional injury is the leading cause of death to children worldwide, and playgrounds pose a significant risk of injury. Those aged 5 and 6 years are particularly vulnerable to playground injuries. Previous interventions have typically targeted environmental modifications or increased supervision to reduce playground injuries; however, minimal research has focused on implementing behavioral interventions that seek to change children's safety knowledge and risk-taking behaviors on the playground. The current randomized trial addressed these gaps in the literature and sought to increase preschool children's hazard awareness skills and knowledge of unsafe playground behaviors and decrease their intentions to engage in risk-taking behaviors on the playground. METHOD: A total of 77 children aged 5 and 6 years were tested at a laboratory on a university campus, using a parallel group design, with 38 randomized to the playground intervention group and 39 randomly assigned to a control group. The intervention was manualized and delivered to small groups of children (3-5) over several sessions. RESULTS: Statistical analyses revealed significant group differences. Intervention experience led to significant increases in hazard awareness skills and knowledge of unsafe playground behaviors, and significant decreases in children's risk-taking behavioral intentions, whereas those in the control group showed no significant changes in these scores. Attention scores for those in the intervention group highlighted that the program content was successful in maintaining children's attention and engagement, and memory scores indicated excellent retention of lesson content. CONCLUSION: The program shows promise in addressing the issue of unintentional playground injuries in young children.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".