MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2166625572 · doi:10.1097/ta.0b013e3181fa7e25

Injury Analyses in Rural Children: Comparison of Old-Order Anabaptists and Non-Anabaptists

2010· article· en· W2166625572 on OpenAlexaffabout
Karen E. Forward, Melissa Chan, Tanya Charyk Stewart, Jason Gilliland, Craig Campbell, Douglas D. Fraser

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection, and Critical Care · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgriculture and Farm Safety
Canadian institutionsChildren’s Health Research InstituteLondon Health Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnabaptistsInterquartile rangeMedicinePediatricsDemographyInternal medicineTheology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Southwestern Ontario largely comprises rural farming districts and is home to numerous Old-Order Anabaptist settlements. Our objective was to describe the injuries sustained by rural children, both Old-Order Anabaptist and non-Anabaptist, to better target injury prevention programs. METHODS: We retrospectively examined injury data of rural children in Southwestern Ontario with injury severity scores ≥ 12 obtained from hospital and trauma databases (1997-2007). RESULTS: A total of 422 rural children were included in this study: 7.8% Anabaptist (n = 33) and 92.2% non-Anabaptist (n = 389). The age of injured Anabaptist children (median, 7 years; interquartile range = 10) was younger than non-Anabaptist children (median, 14 years; interquartile range = 7; p < 0.001). Anabaptist children were most frequently injured on their property (48.5%; n = 16 of 33; p < 0.001). Non-Anabaptist children were mostly injured on roads (56.8%; n = 221 of 389; p < 0.05) and by motor vehicle collisions (MVCs; 40.1%; n = 156 of 389; p = 0.02). Frequent causes of injury among Anabaptist children were falls (24.2%; n = 8 of 33; p = 0.02), animals (15.2%; n = 5 of 33; p = 0.004), and buggies (9.1%; n = 3 of 33). Approximately half of both groups injured in MVCs did not use seat belts. There were no significant differences between cohorts in sex, injury severity scores, hospitalization days, rates of complications, interventions, comorbidities, or mortality rates. CONCLUSIONS: Injuries to Anabaptist children occur at a young age, primarily on their property, and exhibit a unique spectrum of mechanisms. In contrast, injuries to non-Anabaptist children occur at an older age, primarily on roads, and in MVCs. The use of protective devices was low among all rural children. Development of collaborative injury prevention programs targeted to distinct rural communities, including Anabaptist and non-Anabaptist, are needed for reducing injuries among rural children.

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)0.001
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 score0.244
Threshold uncertainty score0.484

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.303 · 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

Citations9
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection, and Critical CareSame topicAgriculture and Farm SafetyFrench-language works237,207