MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2162869219 · doi:10.1580/07-weme-or-141.1

Epidemiology of Mountain Search and Rescue Operations in Banff, Yoho, and Kootenay National Parks, 2003–06

2008· article· en· W2162869219 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Finlay J. Wild

Bibliographic record

VenueWilderness and Environmental Medicine · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicHigh Altitude and Hypoxia
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersParks Canada
KeywordsPopulationDemographicsEpidemiologySearch and rescueMedicineEnvironmental healthMedical emergencyGeographyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To describe the epidemiology of mountain incidents and mountain rescue operations occurring in Banff, Yoho, and Kootenay National Parks between 1 January 2003 and 31 December 2006. METHODS: Retrospective review of Banff, Yoho, and Kootenay Public Safety Occurrence Reports detailing rescue operations within the study period. Demographics, activity, reason for rescue, mode of rescue, type of injury, and fatalities were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 317 emergency mountain rescue operations involving 406 persons was documented. The mean age of the rescued population was 35.2 years, and this population was predominantly male (63.1%). Hikers were involved in 43.5% of incidents, and 'slips and falls' were responsible for 50.2%. Helicopter was the mode of rescue in 64% of cases. Almost half (40.7%) of all rescues involved people with no injuries. The limbs were the most common body part affected (68% of traumatic injuries). Forty fatalities occurred-45% due to avalanches and 27.5% due to slips and falls. CONCLUSIONS: This study offers a synopsis of the rescue service provided by Parks Canada Rescue in the study area. Further work is needed to separate primary and contributory causes of mountain incidents, and this can be achieved by use of better data collection methods. Hospital follow-up is required to accurately assess the morbidity and mortality associated with mountain incidents. Data presented are expected to be of value to a variety of tourism, health, and safety organizations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.759
Threshold uncertainty score0.479

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations28
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWilderness and Environmental MedicineSame topicHigh Altitude and HypoxiaFrench-language works237,207