MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2007059084 · doi:10.13031/2013.5441

Summary of Fatal Entrapments in OnâFarm Grain Storage Bins, 1966â1998

2001· article· en· W2007059084 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Douglas M. Kingman, W. E. Field, Dirk E. Maier

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Safety and Health · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgriculture and Farm Safety
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgricultureBinMedicineForensic engineeringEnvironmental healthToxicologyGeographyEngineeringArchaeologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For over 30 years, Purdue University has maintained a national database of agriculture-related entrapment cases that have occurred in loose agricultural material. At present, 391 documented fatal and non-fatal entrapments from the U.S. and Canada make up the Purdue University Agricultural Entrapment Database. In order to specifically study fatal cases of entrapments in grain bins located on farms, the database was reviewed, 181 cases were identified using specific criteria, and the results were summarized. Approximately five cases per year were identified between 1966 and 1998, representing 18 states and one Canadian province. Entrapments were generally reported more often in the top corn-producing states and during the months of November, December, January, March, and June. In 24% of the cases in which the victim's age was known, the victims were younger than 16. Children and adolescents younger than 16 were more often fatally entrapped in June than in any other month. For cases in which the product was known, corn was the agent of injury in 53% of the cases and was frequently found to be out-of-condition. At the time of entrapment, victims were involved with bin unloading activities in 76% of the cases in which the activity was identified. These findings are being used to design new injury prevention strategies, including educational materials and recommendations for engineering controls that focus on primary causative factors.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.687
Threshold uncertainty score0.260

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 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
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural Safety and HealthSame topicAgriculture and Farm SafetyFrench-language works237,207