Comparing the characteristics of snowboarders injured in a terrain park who present to the ski patrol, the emergency department or both
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ski patrol report forms are a common data source in ski/snowboard research, but it is unclear if those who only present to the emergency department (ED) are systematically different from those who see the ski patrol. To determine the proportion and characteristics of injured snowboarders who bypass the ski patrol before presenting to the ED, three groups of injured snowboarders were compared: presented to the ED only, ski patrol only and ski patrol and ED. Data were collected from ski patrol Accident Report Forms (ARFs), ED medical records and telephone interviews. There were 333 injured snowboarders (ED only: 34, ski patrol only: 107, both: 192). Ability, time of day, snow conditions or drugs/alcohol predicted ED only presentation. Concussions (RRR: 4.66; 95% CI: 1.83, 11.90), sprains/strains (RRR: 4.22; 95% CI: 1.87, 9.49), head/neck (RRR: 2.90; 95% CI: 1.48, 5.78), trunk (RRR: 4.17; 95% CI: 1.92, 9.09) or lower extremity (RRR: 3.65; 95% CI: 1.32, 10.07) injuries were significantly more likely to present to ski patrol only versus ski patrol and ED. In conclusion, snowboarders who presented to the ED only had similar injuries as those who presented to both.
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 | 0.001 | 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".