MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1485301649 · doi:10.1080/17457300.2015.1032981

Epidemiology of yoga-related injuries in Canada from 1991 to 2010: a case series study

2015· article· en· W1485301649 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kelly Russell, Shantel Gushue, Sarah A. Richmond, Steven McFaull

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Injury Control and Safety Promotion · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMindfulness and Compassion Interventions
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenPublic Health Agency of CanadaUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEpidemiologyMedicineInjury preventionPoison controlOccupational safety and healthSuicide preventionPhysical therapyHuman factors and ergonomicsEmergency departmentEmergency medicineInternal medicinePsychiatryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim is to describe the epidemiology of yoga injuries presenting to select Canadian emergency departments (EDs). Those who presented with a yoga injury to a Canadian ED participating in the Canadian Hospitals Injury Reporting and Prevention Program and had completed a data collection form between 1991 and 2010 were included. Demographic and injury characteristics were tabulated and injury profiles of children were compared to adults. Sixty-six individuals (48 female, 18 male) who sustained 67 injuries were included. The median age was 19 (intraquartile range: 13, 32) and 73% of individuals were injured after 2005 (p = 0.0003). Sprain was the most common injury (23/67, 34%) and the most common body region injured was the lower extremity (27/67, 42%). Significantly more children were injured while being instructed than adults (p = 0.003) but more adults required treatment (p = 0.023). Although yoga-related injuries presenting to an ED are not common, the number of injuries are increasing.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.076
Threshold uncertainty score0.852

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.305 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations23
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Injury Control and Safety PromotionSame topicMindfulness and Compassion InterventionsFrench-language works237,207