Injury patterns at US and Canadian overnight summer camps: first year of the Healthy Camp study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe injury patterns at overnight summer camps in 2006, and identify risk factors for more significant injury. DESIGN: Surveillance data obtained from Healthy Camp Study from 2006 were analyzed from 71 overnight camps, representing 437,541 camper-days and 206,031 staff-days. RESULTS: Injuries were reported in 218 campers and 81 staff. 51.8% of injured campers were male versus 34.6% of staff. Among campers, 60.1% were evaluated off-site; 2.3% required hospital admission. 43.9% of injuries required >24 h activity restriction (deemed "significant injury"). Among campers, significant injury was associated with camp sessions > or =14 days (RR 1.48); among staff, with male sex (RR 1.85) and camper-to-staff ratio (RR 0.67). There were no associations with age, time of day, setting, or level of supervision. CONCLUSIONS: Significant injuries are uncommon at overnight summer camps. Rates appear similar to those in comparable activities. Targeted interventions may further reduce injury risk.
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 | 0.000 | 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".