MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Comparing school environments with and without legislation for the prevention and management of anaphylaxis

2011· article· en· W1488650573 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Lisa Cicutto, Brianna Julien, Neill Y. Li, Nha Uyen Nguyen‐Luu, Janice Butler, Ann E. Clarke, Sol Elliott, L. Harada, Shawna McGhan, D. Stark, Timothy K. Vander Leek, S. Waserman

Bibliographic record

VenueAllergy · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFood Allergy and Anaphylaxis Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of AlbertaMemorial University of NewfoundlandMcGill UniversityUniversity of WaterlooUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsLegislationAnaphylaxisMedicineLegislatureEmergency planAllergyEnvironmental healthConsistency (knowledge bases)Family medicinePolitical scienceLawImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: School personnel in contact with students with life-threatening allergies often lack necessary supports, creating a potentially dangerous situation. Sabrina's Law, the first legislation in the world designed to protect such children, requires all Ontario public schools to have a plan to protect children at risk. Although it has captured international attention, the differences a legislative approach makes have not been identified. Our study compared the approaches to anaphylaxis prevention and management in schools with and without legislation. METHODS: Legislated (Ontario) and nonlegislated (Alberta, British Columbia, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Quebec) environments were compared. School board anaphylaxis policies were assessed for consistency with Canadian anaphylaxis guidelines. Parents of at-risk children and school personnel were surveyed to determine their perspectives on school practices. School personnel's EpiPen5 technique was assessed. RESULTS: Consistency of school board policies with anaphylaxis guidelines was significantly better in a legislated environment (P=0.009). Parents in a legislated environment reported more comprehensive anaphylaxis emergency forms (P<0.001), while school personnel in nonlegislated environments reported more comprehensive forms (P=0.004). Despite school personnel in both environments receiving EpiPen5 training (>80%), suboptimal technique was commonly observed. However, school personnel in the legislated environment had better technique (P<0.001). CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that school boards in legislated environments have made greater efforts to support students at risk for anaphylaxis compared to nonlegislated environments. However, significant gaps exist in both environments, especially with respect to EpiPen5 administration, content, and distribution of anaphylaxis emergency forms, and awareness of school procedures by school personnel and parents.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.137
Threshold uncertainty score0.272

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations51
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAllergySame topicFood Allergy and Anaphylaxis ResearchFrench-language works237,207