MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2472749308 · doi:10.3390/safety2020015

A Review on All Terrain Vehicle Safety

2016· review· en· W2472749308 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSafety · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgriculture and Farm Safety
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegislationPoison controlOccupational safety and healthInjury preventionHarmEnforcementEnvironmental healthHuman factors and ergonomicsPopularitySuicide preventionBusinessRecreationEngineeringPublic healthTransport engineeringForensic engineeringMedicinePolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

All-terrain vehicles (ATVs) have become increasing popular in many countries around the world, both for occupational use, as well as recreational use. With an increase in popularity, and the supply of heavier and more powerful machines on the market, major traumas and deaths from ATV use are growing concerns for public health and injury prevention professionals. This review of the literature on ATVs will focus on the mechanism and patterns of ATV-related injuries, the challenges of injury prevention, and the effects of legislation and regulations regarding ATV usage. The increasing burden of injuries and the substantial economic cost from ATV-related traumas and deaths calls for intensification of injury prevention efforts. Modification of risk factors, institution of regulations and legislation, and enforcement of those rules are important steps for prevention of ATV-related harm.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.975
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.003

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.248 · 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