MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1991338866 · doi:10.3928/0098-9134-20050201-10

Risk Factors for Accidental Injuries WITHIN SENIOR CITIZENS' HOMES: Analysis of the Canadian Survey on Ageing and Independence

2005· article· en· W1991338866 on OpenAlexaffabout
Paula C. Fletcher, John P. Hirdes

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Gerontological Nursing · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Health and Safety Research
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccidentalGerontologyLogistic regressionMedicineMultivariate analysisInjury preventionPoison controlOccupational safety and healthHuman factors and ergonomicsSuicide preventionPsychologyEnvironmental healthDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using data from the Survey on Ageing and Independence (SAI), risk factors for unintentional injuries occurring within the homes of individuals older than 65 are identified. For the SAI, conducted by Statistics Canada in 1991, data were collected on a representative sample of approximately 20,000 individuals between ages 45 and 102. For each household contacted, one individual older than 45 was interviewed via the telephone. For the present analysis, only individuals older than 65 (n = 10,059) were used. Approximately 5% of senior citizens experienced an injury that limited their activity for at least 1 day. Using logistic regression, the following risk factors for injury were identified: education, alcohol consumption, smoking, rest and sleep patterns, support, and interactions between age and gender, activity limitations and age, and home maintenance and gender. The present findings are important to the body of research concerning injuries among older adults. The results expand current univariate analysis of data identifying risk factors for injuries within the literature and provide comprehensive information pertaining to risk factors for accidental injuries at the multivariate level. Identification of risk factors provides health care professionals, particularly front line nurses, with insight into factors that, if modified, have the potential to decrease accidental injuries and improve or maintain quality of life.

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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.090

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.008
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.098
GPT teacher head0.460
Teacher spread0.362 · 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

Citations16
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Gerontological NursingSame topicOccupational Health and Safety ResearchFrench-language works237,207