Vancouver Charter: bringing ski and snowboard helmet legislation to Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Vancouver Charter on Skiing Safety is based on skiing and snowboarding safety and the Turin Charter (approved in the context of the 2006 Turin Winter Olympic Games) and was brought to Canada by Safe Kids Canada. Originally prepared by a panel of experts and specialists delegated by European Governments who worked under the coordination of TOROC (Turin Organizing Committee), BE.PRA.S.A. (a project co-financed by the European Commission and the health authority of the Italian region of Veneto) and the Italian National Health Institute, the aim of the Charter is to promote a safe, healthy and active sporting and recreational culture, and to make its principles visible to the public, citizens and institutions. Over 30 international, national, provincial and municipal organisations have endorsed the Charter to date. The Charter was introduced at a Helmet Forum in November 2009 in Vancouver and featured experts such as Dr Charles Tator, Dr Richard Stanwick, Dr Brent Hagel and Mr Matt Herman. The forum was attended by injury prevention experts, ski/snowboard industry representatives and media and resulted in extensive national media coverage of the issue, especially the diversity of opinions and debates it has created. This presentation will show Safe Kids Canada's experience of how the Charter can be leveraged by other countries, review the challenges and successes, present our knowledge translation ‘recipe for success’ and update the audience on activities to date.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".