MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2340981011 · doi:10.1093/ije/dyv097.213

Injuries in the Northwest Territories, Canada: 2000–09.

2015· article· en· W2340981011 on OpenAlexaffabout
Heather Hannah, Maria Santos, M Y Wong, Kami Kandola

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Epidemiology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInjury Epidemiology and Prevention
Canadian institutionsGovernment of Northwest Territories
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeographyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Injury is the third leading cause of death in the Northwest Territories (NWT). Among those aged 1–44 years, it is the leading cause of death. The goal of this study was to describe the epidemiology of injuries among NWT residents from 2000 to 2009. METHODS: A review of hospitalizations and deaths among NWT residents due to injury for the 2000–09 interval was conducted using data obtained from NWT Vital Statistics and hospital admissions obtained from Canadian Institute for Health Information's Discharge Abstracts Database. The NWT Statistics Bureau Population provided population data. Emergency room visits were not available for analysis. All analyses were performed using SPSS. RESULTS: Between 2000 and 2009, 308 NWT residents died as a result of an injury, an average of more than 30 deaths per year (crude injury death rate = 72 deaths per 100,000 population year). The top five leading causes of injury-related death were suicide, unintentional poisoning, motor vehicle traffic-related Injuries, drowning and falls. Intentional injuries (suicides and violence/injury purposely inflicted) accounted for 32% ( n = 100) of injury deaths whereas unintentional injuries accounted for 67% ( n = 205).

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)0.000
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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.154

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.009
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.316 · 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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of EpidemiologySame topicInjury Epidemiology and PreventionFrench-language works237,207