MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Playground equipment injuries at home versus those in public settings: differences in severity

2012· article· en· W2110653018 on OpenAlexaffabout
Glenn Keays, Robin Skinner

Bibliographic record

VenueInjury Prevention · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInjury Epidemiology and Prevention
Canadian institutionsPublic Health Agency of CanadaMontreal Children's Hospital
FundersU.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
KeywordsFalling (accident)MedicineOddsOdds ratioPublic healthInjury preventionPoison controlOccupational safety and healthSuicide preventionEnvironmental healthMedical emergencyLogistic regressionInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of the present research was to compare the severity of playground-related injuries in backyards of home with those occurring in public settings. This case-control study used emergency-based surveillance data from Canada regarding children, 3-11 years old, who were injured after falling from playground equipment (PGE). Cases were those whose injuries occurred at home (backyards), and controls were those whose injuries occurred in parks, schools or daycare centres. Of the 39,730 subjects selected, 84% happened in public and 16% at home. Children falling from a home PGE had greater odds of severe injuries (OR=1.30; 95% CI 1.23 to 1.37) and fractures (OR=1.47; 95% CI 1.39 to 1.55) than those from public PGE. Children aged 3-5 years falling off slides at home, compared to slides in public settings, had the greatest odds of severe injuries (OR=1.72; 95% CI 1.41 to 2.09) and fractures (OR=2.17; 95% CI 1.79 to 2.64.) When setting up PGE at home, parents should be diligent in using proper landing surfaces, such as those found in public playgrounds.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.849

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.293 · 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
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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