MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2017079250 · doi:10.1097/bot.0000000000000104

Why a Decade of Road Traffic Safety?

2014· article· en· W2017079250 on OpenAlexaff
Herman Johal, Emil H. Schemitsch, Mohit Bhandari

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Orthopaedic Trauma · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTrauma and Emergency Care Studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityMcMaster University Medical CentreUniversity of CalgarySt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOccupational safety and healthPoison controlRoad trafficInjury preventionSuicide preventionPublic healthTransport engineeringEnvironmental healthEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Each year, 1.24 million people die as a result of road traffic collisions around the world, and millions more are left to suffer the resultant disabilities of their nonfatal typically musculoskeletal injuries. The most productive members of society are the ones affected the most, and the subsequent economic impact cannot be ignored. Reducing the morbidity and mortality associated with road traffic injuries will reduce suffering and increase available resources that can be used more effectively. Road traffic injuries are preventable, and the impact of those that do occur can be mitigated. Adequate national and global funding, strategy, and measurable targets are fundamental to a sustainable response to road safety. Over the last decade, the United Nations and World Health Organization have been part of the gaining momentum toward addressing this issue, through resolutions and coordinating global efforts. This is what brought about the "Decade of Action for Road Traffic Safety," and as orthopaedic surgeons, our involvement is key for the collaborative public health response toward this effort.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.008
Scholarly communication0.0110.014
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0090.017
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.005

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Orthopaedic TraumaSame topicTrauma and Emergency Care StudiesFrench-language works237,207