MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2001042610 · doi:10.1177/1367493514551311

‘I fell off and landed badly’

2014· article· en· W2001042610 on OpenAlexafffund
Joanie Sims‐Gould, Douglas Race, Lynsey Hamilton, Heather Macdonald, Kishore Mulpuri, Heather McKay

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Child Health Care · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHomelessness and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsBC Children's HospitalChild and Family Research InstitutePraxis Spinal Cord InstituteVancouver Coastal HealthVancouver Coastal Health Research InstituteUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsFellArchaeologyGeographyCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Forearm fractures are one of the most common injuries sustained by children. Our descriptive study addressed, from the perspective of a child, the following research objectives: (1) to describe their fracture experience and (2) to describe how fractures might be prevented. Photovoice is a unique research strategy by which people create and discuss photographs. This technique has been used to elicit the perspectives of those whose voices are often 'not heard' in research, like children. Participants were recruited from a larger three-year prospective trial and included 10 boys (12.3 ± 1.6 years) and 7 girls (11.3 ± 1.6 years). We asked participants to take pictures to explain where their injury occurred (place), what they were doing at the time (context) and how the fracture had happened (mechanism). We also used semi-structured interview techniques. The following key themes emerged from our interviews: (1) the built environment as a key factor that 'caused' their fracture, (2) the fracture experienced as a journey not an event and (3) strategies to prevent fractures. A simple clinical step to potentially reduce subsequent fractures will be for clinicians to have a brief conversation with their young patients and to listen to the child's personal preventive strategies.

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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.558
Threshold uncertainty score0.559

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.384 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations7
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Child Health CareSame topicHomelessness and Social IssuesFrench-language works237,207