Booster seat promotion in Winnipeg: Evaluation of a campaign targeting parents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Motor vehicle collisions are the leading cause of injury death for Canadian children, with improper restraint being an important and preventable contributing factor. Children 4-8 years of age are the least likely to be properly restrained, and should be in forwardfacing car seats or booster seats until they are at least 4 foot 9 inches tall in order to prevent lap belt syndrome and other serious injuries. A three-year booster seat promotion campaign was launched in 2010 in Winnipeg. The primary goal of this project was to determine the effectiveness of this campaign, in terms of observed booster seat use, using a roadside observational study. Secondary objectives were to measure self-reported booster seat use; to examine parental estimations of their child’s height and weight; and to explore parents’ understanding and use of booster seats, using a parent survey. Booster seat use increased significantly throughout the campaign, from 14.7% in 2010 to 31.4% in 2012 (p<0.001). Booster seat use was significantly higher by selfreport (68.3%) and dropped significantly by 8 years of age (p=0.001). Parents tended to underestimate their child’s height and weight. 13 of 14 children in seat belts should have been using a booster seat, however their parents did not know that a booster seat was recommended. The next phase of the booster seat campaign and the introduction of legislation in 2013 will be important to further increase use, particularly among children 7-8 years of age. These results may be used to inform and improve on these efforts.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".