Volunteers in public health and emergency management at outdoor music festivals Earl, Stoneham and Capra report on a study undertaken involving volunteers at an outdoor music festival in Queensland.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article will report on a study undertakeninvolving volunteers at an outdoor music festival inAustralia. The study was designed to assess thevolunteers’ knowledge and skills in emergencymanagement. The findings are based predominantlyon self-report data. Findings from the study indicatedthat a major proportion of the volunteers in thestudy expressed some level of confidence in dealingwith an emergency situation within their worklocations at the festival. This level of confidence wasassociated with volunteer training and knowledge ofpublic health and emergency management. However,less than half of the study participants hadknowledge of emergency and public healthmanagement for the festival. Furthermore, less thanone quarter had knowledge of the festival’semergency management plan. It was evident thatthere was a need to increase the number ofvolunteers with knowledge of public health andemergency management for the festival. All thesefindings support continued volunteer trainingprograms to improve emergency and public healthmanagement at the festival.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".