Self strangulation by hanging from cloth towel dispensers in Canadian schools
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate a local "epidemic" of incidents of strangulation by hanging from continuous cloth towels in dispensers. METHOD: The coroner's office in all provinces and territories were contacted. Five cases of hanging from continuous cloth towels in Canadian schools were identified and reviewed. RESULTS: There were four deaths, and one near-death, all males age 7 to 12. Two cases were attributed to a "choking game" that provides a sensation (impending loss of consciousness) described as "cool". In three cases, the child was alone at the time. All deaths were due to strangulation from hanging and all occurred in school washrooms. One child (playing with two friends) recovered after admission to an intensive care unit. Towel dispensers were removed from the two index schools. In one province the Ministry of Education encouraged removal of towel dispensers from all schools and education of students of the dangers of "choking games". CONCLUSIONS: Thrill seeking from partial asphyxiation appears to underlie these incidents. Awareness of such cases should prompt appropriate education strategies to highlight the serious consequences of this form of risk taking behavior in young males. In Canada, these incidents have resulted in changes in the design of, and legislation regarding, cloth towel dispensers.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".