MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2088707324 · doi:10.1097/jsm.0b013e31820758dc

Public Health Recommendations for Athletes Attending Sporting Events

2010· article· en· W2088707324 on OpenAlexaffabout
Patricia Daly, Réka Gustafson

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Journal of Sport Medicine · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTravel-related health issues
Canadian institutionsVancouver Coastal Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAthletesMedicinePublic healthMeaslesVaccinationOutbreakFamily medicineEnvironmental healthMedical emergencyPhysical therapyNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Public health planning in advance of the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games included an assessment of potential public health risks for athletes attending the Games and mitigation activities to reduce those risks, including provision of vaccination recommendations to athletes. Physicians providing care to athletes who will attend large sporting events at home or abroad should consider their need for routine and additional vaccinations well in advance of the event to permit completion of vaccination schedules, ensure development of immunity, and avoid adverse vaccine reactions in the final stages of athlete training. Specific vaccinations recommended will vary depending on the location of the event and time of year it is scheduled. Other simple prevention measures for athletes include hand washing recommendations, avoiding high-risk foods, practicing safe sex, and taking simple precautions to reduce the risk of injuries. No major public health problems occurred during the 2010 Winter Games, but a measles outbreak began in Vancouver coincident in time with the Games; no known cases occurred among participating athletes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.085

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0050.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0250.006

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 head0.325
GPT teacher head0.514
Teacher spread0.189 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations23
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Journal of Sport MedicineSame topicTravel-related health issuesFrench-language works237,207