Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the incidence, reasons for, and characteristics of health center visits by campers at a Canadian provincial Scout jamboree. METHODS: A retrospective observational design utilized a medical record review process. The study sample was 804 campers present for 4,816 camper days (CDs). RESULTS: There were 172 visits to the camp health center for an incidence rate of 36 per 1,000 CDs. The median length of stay was 30 minutes. Patients with illnesses were seen 1.7 times more frequently than those with injuries. One in five visits was for follow-up. More than 97% of visits occurred during the scheduled health center hours of operation. The rate of adverse events (AEs) was 3.32 per 1,000 CDs, accounting for 9.3% of all visits. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of health center visits and AEs are consistent with studies conducted with other resident camps. Camp administrators, organizers, and healthcare personnel must be prepared to provide care for a wide range of illnesses and injuries at camp. Understanding the trends associated with camp health center usage allows adequate personnel and physical resources to be prepared and identifies increased usage levels. Nurses can use this information to advocate for nurses to be employed at camps to aid in health prevention services as well as to manage illnesses and injuries.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".