Quality of information on risk factors reported by ski patrols
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the reliability of reporting of information on risk factors from a standard accident report form used by ski patrols and a follow up mail questionnaire or telephone interview among injured skiers and snowboarders. SETTING: 19 ski areas in the Canadian province of Quebec between November 2001 and April 2002. PARTICIPANTS: 4377 injured skiers and snowboarders seen by the ski patrol, who completed a follow up mail questionnaire or telephone interview. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Kappa and weighted kappa statistics were used to measure the chance corrected agreement for self reported ability, age, skiing time on day of injury, lessons, type of practice, use of helmet at time of injury, and hill difficulty. RESULTS: The kappa value for helmet use at the time of injury was 0.88 (95% confidence interval 0.87 to 0.90) and for other risk factors ranged from 0.45 (skiing time on day of injury) to 0.98 (age). Few differences were seen in reporting by body region of injury. Reporting consistency was lower for respondents who completed telephone interviews compared with those who completed mail questionnaires and those who responded more than four months after the injury. CONCLUSIONS: Moderate to almost perfect agreement, depending on the risk factor, exists between ski patrols' accident report forms and follow up information. Ski patrol reports can be a reliable and readily available source of information on risk factors for skiing and snowboarding.
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".