How much science is there in injury prevention and control?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine what proportion of research papers at an injury prevention conference reported an evaluation. METHODS: A random sample of 250 abstracts from the 6th World Conference on Injury Prevention and Control were classified by methodological type. Those that described any evaluation were further subdivided by whether the evaluation was of process or if it used an intermediate or "true" outcome. RESULTS: Of 250 abstracts, 20 (8%; 95% confidence interval 5.0% to 12.1%) showed evaluations with intermediate or true outcomes. Research designs were weak. Among the 20 reports, none was a randomized trial and only two conducted a before and after study with control group. The remaining 17 used before-after or "after only" designs. CONCLUSION: The conference papers included few evaluations. To ensure that resources are best used, those in the injury prevention field must increase their use of rigorous evaluation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.400 | 0.771 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.025 | 0.028 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".