The use of bicycle helmets in a western Canadian province without legislation.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This study examined the use of helmets in adults, adolescents, and children in a western Canadian province that has no helmet legislation. METHODS: A prospective survey of cyclists in two urban Alberta regions was completed. Cyclist demographics, helmet wearing and helmet use were recorded. RESULTS: Helmets were observed in 2,259 (55%; 99% CI: 52-57) of 4,141 cyclists; however, only 75% (CI 71, 78) were wearing the helmet properly. Patterns of use varied according to age: 75% (CI 71, 78) of children, 29% (CI 23, 34) of adolescents, and 52% (CI 49, 55) of adults wore helmets. Percentages were higher in Calgary than Edmonton (63% vs. 45%; p < 0.0001) and females wore helmets more often (64% vs. 50%; p < 0.0001). DISCUSSION: These results identify large within- and between-region variation in the use of cycling helmets in Alberta. Injury prevention planners need to use these data to adopt interventions that are focused on age groupings, gender, and place of residence.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".