MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2047281102 · doi:10.1097/mrr.0b013e32833638a5

The risks and benefits of snow sports for people with disabilities: a review of the literature

2010· review· en· W2047281102 on OpenAlex
Gabriella Nasuti, Viviene A. Temple

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Rehabilitation Research · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicWinter Sports Injuries and Performance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBalance (ability)SnowAlpine skiingInclusion (mineral)PopulationPsychologyInjury preventionPhysical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPoison controlMedicineGeographyEnvironmental healthSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Snow sports are popular pastimes with therapeutic potential. The aim of this review is to evaluate the risk of injury and evidence of benefits of alpine skiing (including sit-skiing), Nordic skiing, and snowboarding for people with disabilities. Ten studies met the inclusion criteria from 357 citations. Research in this area is still in its infancy, but the risks of engaging in snow sports appear no greater than those of the general population, and there is some evidence that skiing can positively influence self-esteem, physical self-worth, standing balance, and gross motor function among individuals with a disability.

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.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.910
Threshold uncertainty score0.728

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.448
Teacher spread0.386 · 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