Parent and child factors that affect unintentional injury in late childhood
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study examined how parent factors (i.e., permissive parenting, beliefs about the benefits of injuries) and child factors (i.e., risk-taking propensity, disclosure of information to parents about location and activities, secret keeping) predict the occurrence of injuries in pre-adolescents and adolescents. To garner a more comprehensive understanding of how parent gender and child gender each impact injury risk across developmental stages in later childhood, mothers' and fathers' perspectives were examined, and sons and daughters were considered separately. METHOD: One hundred eighteen parent-child triads provided survey data (61 pre-adolescent, 57 adolescent). Children reported on disclosures about their activities and whereabouts to their parents and intentional secret keeping. Mothers and fathers each reported on their child's injury history and risk-taking propensity, as well as their permissiveness in parenting and beliefs about the benefits of their child sustaining minor injuries. RESULTS: Greater risk-taking propensity predicted injuries for sons but not daughters, across both pre-adolescence and adolescence, and based on both mothers' and fathers' reports. Parental belief in the benefits of injuries was associated with more frequent injuries among pre-adolescents. Parental knowledge about their children's activities and whereabouts significantly reduced injury risk for adolescents. Fathers' permissiveness and sons' keeping secrets from fathers both predicted higher injury risk in adolescence. CONCLUSION: Parent and child attributes both contribute to injury risk in later childhood, but the effects differ as a function of the developmental level of the child and the gender of the parent and child. Implications for injury prevention 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".