MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408695970 · doi:10.1177/26320770241312332

The Value of Stakeholder-Engaged Research: Using Parent Voices in the Adaptation of the <i>Cool 2 Be Safe</i> Playground Safety Intervention Program

2025· article· en· W4408695970 on OpenAlexaff
Amanda Cox, Barbara A. Morrongiello

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Prevention and Health Promotion · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicYouth Development and Social Support
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntervention (counseling)StakeholderAdaptation (eye)Value (mathematics)PsychologyApplied psychologyComputer sciencePublic relationsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Playground injuries are a leading cause of injury for children. Those who are 4 to 6 years of age are particularly vulnerable given their transitioning toward increased autonomy and less direct supervision. Most previous interventions have targeted environmental modifications or increased supervision to reduce playground injuries, though there is evidence of one child-focused intervention that targets behavior change. Specifically, for children 7+ years, the Cool 2 Be Safe Program has been shown to effectively reduce fall-risk behaviors on playgrounds. However, there are no behaviorally focused interventions for younger children. Addressing this gap, a stakeholder-engaged qualitative approach was used to identify the best ways to adapt and create the Cool 2 Be Safe Junior Program for children who are 4 to 6 years old. Two phases of interviews were conducted with parents, with feedback from the first phase of interviews used to modify lesson materials prior to the second phase of interviews. Parents provided perspectives about program content, as well as strengths and limitations of the program. Responses were analyzed using conventional content analysis. Parents’ feedback assisted in program modification that ultimately strengthened the intervention, as evidenced by parents’ overall positive ratings of the program. Implications for preventing playground injuries and program development for preschool children are discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.081
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.071
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.081
Threshold uncertainty score0.428

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0810.071
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.009
Scholarly communication0.0100.011
Open science0.0030.012
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.463
GPT teacher head0.515
Teacher spread0.052 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Prevention and Health PromotionSame topicYouth Development and Social SupportFrench-language works237,207