The implementation of a municipal indoor ice skating helmet policy: effects on helmet use, participation and attitudes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RELEVANT LOCAL INJURY EPIDEMIOLOGY: In Ottawa, between 2005 and 2009 there was an annual average of 47.2 head injuries due to ice skating in children and youth (1-19 years of age) requiring a visit to the emergency department, with the highest rates among those aged 5-14 years. Between 2002 and 2007, only 6% of children were wearing a helmet during ice skating when the head injury occurred. During indoor public skating sessions, 93% of children (<10 years)-57% aged 10-12 years, 20% aged 13-17 years and 9% adults-wore helmets in the absence of a policy. Support for a helmet policy was high from public health, medical, political and community perspectives. BEST PRACTICE: Helmet policies in relation to cycling have demonstrated increases in helmet use and reduction of head injuries without decreasing physical activity. However, no known studies have examined the effect of indoor ice skating helmet policy coupled with education and promotional activities on helmet use, participation and attitudes towards helmet use. IMPLEMENTATION: An ice skating helmet policy for children (<11 years of age) and those with limited skating experience at indoor rinks during public skating sessions was developed, implemented and evaluated. Supportive activities such as discount coupons, promotional materials, a media launch, social marketing and staff training are described. DISCUSSION: The helmet policy was associated with increased helmet use for young children and for older children, youth and adults not included in the policy, without decreasing attendance to public skating sessions.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".