The contributions of knowledge and trust involving the use of child car seats among Indigenous Peoples in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the current study was to examine the effects of child vehicle restraint-related knowledge and trust in information on car seat use among Indigenous Peoples in Canada. METHODS: An in-person survey was administered to participants who identified as Indigenous (i.e., First Nation or Métis). Participants included those from the Canadian provinces of Ontario, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Alberta, British Columbia, and Quebec. The sample consisted of 536 Indigenous adults, ages 18 and older, who reported having children aged 12 or younger or reported transporting other children in vehicles. The analysis focused on the prediction of consistent car seat use. Logistic regression models were used to test the main predictive effects of gender, living on reserve, levels of child vehicle restraint-related knowledge, and levels of trust in information. An interaction effect of child vehicle restraint-related knowledge by trust in information on consistent car seat use was also tested. RESULTS: Gender did not significantly predict consistent car seat use. However, those who reported living on reserve were 52% less likely to report consistently using car seats than those who reported not living on reserve. Additionally, those who exhibited high levels of child vehicle restraint-related knowledge were two and a half times more likely to report consistent car seat use than those with low knowledge levels. Respondents' level of trust in information was also significantly related to consistent car seat use. Respondents who reported high levels of trust in information were nearly twice as likely to report consistent car seat use than those who reported low levels of trust. Finally, among respondents who demonstrated low knowledge, those who showed high trust in information were nearly two and half times as likely to report consistent car seat use than those who showed low trust. CONCLUSIONS: The current study provided evidence that having the requisite knowledge and trust in information was found to be associated with caregiver compliance in using car seats on a regular basis.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".