MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2108942854 · doi:10.1136/ip.6.2.154

Prevention of spinal cord injuries caused by diving: evaluation of the distribution and usage of a diving safety video in high schools

2000· article· en· W2108942854 on OpenAlexaffabout
Vinay Bhide, Virginia E. Edmonds, Charles H. Tator

Bibliographic record

VenueInjury Prevention · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInjury Epidemiology and Prevention
Canadian institutionsToronto Western HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOccupational safety and healthPoison controlInjury preventionHuman factors and ergonomicsSuicide preventionMedical emergencySpinal cord injuryEngineeringForensic engineeringMedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationAeronauticsPhysical therapyTransport engineeringSpinal cordPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To determine and assess the distribution and use of Sudden Impact, a video designed by Think First and SportsSmart Canada, to help prevent spinal cord injury caused by careless shallow water diving among teenagers in the high risk group (15-24 years old). DESIGN: Survey of 92 public secondary schools in Toronto, Canada. SUBJECTS: The heads of the physical and health education departments of the 92 secondary public schools in the Metropolitan Toronto region. RESULTS: The response rate was 64% (59 schools), of which 76% (45) had actually received the video. Forty one schools (91%) of those that received the video reported using it. Eighty per cent of responding schools showed it to grade 11 students. Eighty per cent of schools with swimming pools used the video compared with only 42% of schools without swimming pools. CONCLUSIONS: There is a need for improvements in the system of distribution to ensure greater use of material such as this video. These may include direct distribution to principals, continuing contact with the schools, or mandatory inclusion of diving safety into the school curriculum.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.542
Threshold uncertainty score0.557

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.331 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations17
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInjury PreventionSame topicInjury Epidemiology and PreventionFrench-language works237,207