MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1533136256 · doi:10.1093/pch/17.9.485

The effect of surface and season on playground injury rates

2012· article· en· W1533136256 on OpenAlexaffabout
Lara Joan Branson, John Latter, Gillian Currie, Alberto Nettel‐Aguirre, Tania Embree, Brent Hagel

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInjury Epidemiology and Prevention
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSpring (device)Animal scienceEnvironmental scienceEngineeringBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of season on playground surface injury rates. METHODS: Injuries were identified through student incident report forms used in school districts in Calgary (Alberta) and the surrounding area. Playground surface exposure data were estimated based on school enrollment. RESULTS: A total of 539 injuries were reported during the 2007/2008 school year. Abrasions, bruises and inflammation were the most frequently reported injuries. The head, neck or face were most commonly injured. Injury rates per 1000 student days ranged between 0.018 (rubber crumb in spring) and 0.08 (poured-in-place and natural rock in the fall). Rubber crumb surfacing, compared with natural rock, had a significantly lower rate of injury in the spring, but no other season-surface comparisons were statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Rates of injury were similar for natural rock, poured-in-place, and crushed rock in the fall and winter. There was some evidence of a lower rate of injury on rubber crumb surfaces in the spring.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.327 · 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

Citations5
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child HealthSame topicInjury Epidemiology and PreventionFrench-language works237,207