MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

158 A comparative analysis of global child restraint use in nine cities

2024· article· en· W4402057152 on OpenAlex
Khushbu Balsara, Hasan S. Merali, Xueer Zhang, Haruhiko Inada, Abdulgafoor M. Bachani

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAbstracts · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics and Legal Issues in Pediatric Healthcare
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityMcMaster Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<h3>Background</h3> Road traffic injuries are the leading cause of death for children over five, and these deaths occur predominantly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Despite the proven effectiveness of child restraints in reducing mortality by 60%, utilization rates are critically low in these regions. Unfortunately, child restraint use is extremely low in LMICs, with rates below 10% in some Latin American countries. Moreover, the WHO has no child restraint use data in major regions including Africa, Eastern Mediterranean, and South-East Asia. This study, funded by the Bloomberg Philanthropies Initiative for Global Road Safety, evaluates child restraint usage across nine global cities. <h3>Methods</h3> Observational data were collected in eight rounds from February 2015 to March 2019, in Accra, Addis Ababa, Bandung, Bangkok, Bogota, Fortaleza, Ho Chi Minh City, Mumbai, and Sao Paulo. Observations included the child’s age, use of child restraint, seat position, vehicle type, day, and road type. <h3>Results</h3> From 43,619 observations, the prevalence of child restraint use was 16.23% for under-fives and 3.24% for ages five to eleven. Sao Paulo had the highest under-five usage at 53.54%, and Bandung had the lowest, at 2.23%. Children over five showed the highest restraint usage in Bangkok and Sao Paulo, both above 16%, while the remaining cities fell below 10%. Sedans and SUVs had higher restraint usage rates, with lower rates noted on Fridays and on local roads. A significant number of children were improperly seated in the front seat. <h3>Conclusion</h3> The low and variable rates of child restraint use in these nine cities highlight a critical public health issue. Potential barriers to child restraint use include availability, affordability, and lack of necessary infrastructure, such as seat belts in older vehicles. The ongoing analysis aims to identify factors influencing restraint use and track changes over time. The findings underscore the urgency for improved vehicle standards and stronger policies to enhance child passenger safety globally.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.189
Threshold uncertainty score0.824

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.080
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.332 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it