Listening to a personal music player is associated with fewer but more serious injuries among snowboarders in a terrain park: a case-control study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Some snowboarders listen to music on a personal music player and the objective was to determine if listening to music was associated with injury in a terrain park. METHODS: A case-control study was conducted at a terrain park in Alberta, Canada during the 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 winter seasons. Cases were snowboarders who were injured in the terrain park and presented to either the ski patrol and/or a nearby emergency department (ED). Demographic, environmental and injury characteristics were collected from standardised ski patrol Accident Report Forms, ED medical records and telephone interviews. Controls were uninjured snowboarders using the same terrain park and were interviewed as they approached the lift-line on randomly selected days and times. Multivariable logistic regression determined if listening to music was associated with the odds of snowboard injury. RESULTS: Overall, 333 injured cases and 1261 non-injured controls were enrolled; 69 (21%) cases and 425 (34%) controls were listening to music. Snowboarders listening to music had significantly lower odds of injury compared with those not listening to music (adjusted odds ratio (OR) 0.68; 95% CI 0.48 to 0.98). Snowboarders listening to music had significantly higher odds of presenting to the ED versus ski patrol only compared with those not listening to music (adjusted OR 2.09; 95% CI 1.07 to 4.05). CONCLUSIONS: While listening to music decreased the odds of any injury in the terrain park, it increased the odds of an injury resulting in ED presentation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".