MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409265679 · doi:10.1002/jaba.70002

The influence of video prompting with embedded safety checks to teach child passenger safety restraint skills

2025· article· en· W4409265679 on OpenAlexafffund
Kimberley L. M. Zonneveld, Niruba Rasuratnam, Jason C. Vladescu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Behavior Analysis · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInjury Epidemiology and Prevention
Canadian institutionsBrock University
FundersBrock University
KeywordsPsychologySafety behaviorsMultiple baseline designHuman factors and ergonomicsOccupational safety and healthApplied psychologyInjury preventionMotor skillPoison controlMedical educationDevelopmental psychologyMedical emergencyMedicineIntervention (counseling)Psychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Motor vehicle collisions are among the leading causes of unintended injury-related deaths among children under the age of 14. The primary cause of these deaths is the improper use of child passenger safety restraints (CPSRs). Correctly installed CPSRs can decrease the risk of fatal injury by 45% to 95%. To date, no studies have used video prompting with embedded safety checks to teach correct CPSR installation and harnessing in the absence of researcher-delivered instruction and feedback. We used a concurrent multiple-baseline-across-participants design to evaluate the efficacy of a video-prompting procedure with embedded safety checks to teach four prospective parents and caregivers CPSR installation and harnessing skills. All participants learned to perform these skills, and these effects maintained for 4 weeks. Furthermore, this training improved all participants' performance of an untrained installation position, vehicle, and harnessing skill, and these effects were largely maintained for 4 weeks.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied Behavior AnalysisSame topicInjury Epidemiology and PreventionFrench-language works237,207