3-Year Impact of a Provincial Choking Prevention Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of a provincial choking prevention program (CPP) on the incidence of aerodigestive foreign body cases among children. METHODS: The CPP, including posters, pamphlets, an informative video, and annual participation in the Parents & Kids Fair, was launched throughout Quebec in October 1999. The incidence rates of aerodigestive foreign body cases prior to implementation (during 1997-1998) and subsequently (2000-2002) within the province and our tertiary care centre (Sainte-Justine Hospital) were compared by estimating incidence rate ratios (IRRs) and associated 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). RESULTS: No significant changes in the incidence of aerodigestive foreign body cases after program implementation were observed in our hospital (age-adjusted IRR 0.92, 95% CI 0.79-1.07). The provincial rates were higher after program implementation (age-adjusted IRR 1.15, 95% CI 1.05-1.25). CONCLUSIONS: To influence choking prevention habits, modifications to the campaign are required. Strategies are discussed.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".