Bibliographic record
Abstract
Child restraints are very effective at protecting young occupants in severe motor vehicle crashes. The protection provided by these devices can be reduced, however, if they are not correctly installed in the vehicle or if the child is not correctly strapped into the restraint. In order to determine the quality of installation of child restraints, the Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales commissioned surveys of (a) child restraints fitted to unoccupied vehicles in shopping centre car parks and (b) people attending family restaurants or child care centres with children. Car park surveys were carried out at 18 locations throughout New South Wales. Of the 1,177 cases where installation quality could be determined, 20% of infant capsules and 19% of child seats were found to have safety-related installation problems. The interview/observation survey was a pilot study. A total of 149 interviews were conducted at 12 sites in 10 towns. Overall 88% of those approached agreed to both the interview and the in-vehicle inspection of child restraints. About one quarter of the restraints were found to have safety-related installation problems. Technically the interview surveys were considered to be successful but they were found to be resource intensive. Other sources of information about the performance of child restraints in Australia are briefly reviewed. These are: dynamic (sled) tests of child restraints under the Child Restraint Evaluation Program (CREP); consumer crash tests conducted under the Australian New Car Assessment Program and two in-depth crash studies that provided information about child occupants in crashes during the 1990s. For the covering abstract see ITRD E111577.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".