Evaluation of a ski and snowboard injury prevention program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective was to study the effectiveness of a brochure and video at improving skiing and snowboarding knowledge. Sixty-nine Grade 7 students were randomised to an educational intervention (n = 35) or control (n = 34) group. The intervention group viewed an injury prevention video aimed at improving skiers and snowboarder's knowledge, attitudes and behaviours about ski and snowboard safety and received a brochure. The control group participated in a teaching session and had a simple question and answer session about snow sports. Pre- and post-tests were administered and injuries during four trips were documented. Pre-test scores were similar between the two groups. Compared with the control group, there was a significantly greater improvement in post-test scores among the intervention group (WMD: 2.1; 95% CI: 0.19-4.01). There was no significant difference in injury rates (RR: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.04, 3.39). All injuries were minor and did not require medical attention. The intervention aimed at youth skiers and snowboarders appears to be effective at improving knowledge, attitudes and behaviours of skiing and snowboarding safety.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".