Head injury trends and helmet use in skiers and snowboarders in Western Canada, 2008–2009 to 2012–2013: an ecological study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research explored associations between helmet use and head injuries in snowsports by investigating reported snowsport injuries in Western Canada from 2008-2009 to 2012-2013. The key finding was that increased helmet use (from 69% to 80%) was not associated with a reduction in reported head injuries. Over the study period, the average rate of reported head injuries was 0.2/1000 skier visits, with a statistically significant variation (P < 0.001). The line of best fit showed an non-significant upward trend (P = 0.13). Lacerations were the only subcategory of head injuries that decreased significantly with helmet use. A higher proportion of people who reported a head injury were wearing a helmet than for injuries other than to the head. Skiers were more likely to report a head injury when wearing a helmet than snowboarders (P < 0.001 cf. P = 0.22). There were significant differences in characteristics of helmet and non-helmet wearers. Helmet wearers were more likely to be: young adults (P < 0.001); beginner/novices (P = 0.004); and snowboarders (P < 0.001), but helmet wearing was not associated with gender (P = 0.191). Further research is needed to explore the possible reasons for the failure of helmets to reduce head injuries, for example, increased reporting of head injuries and increased risk-taking combined with over-rating of the helmets' protection.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it