265 Pool fencing bylaws and drowning rates among children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The majority of fatal drownings in Canada occur in natural bodies of water; however private backyard pools are consistently the most common setting where children under 5 years of age drown. A number of studies conducted primarily in Australia and the United States have provided evidence that pool fencing reduces the risk of drowning among children. No long term analysis of pool fencing and municipal bylaws as a factor affecting the risk of childhood drowning in Canada has been published. Methods Using a multi-level ecologic study design, the drowning death rate in Ontario municipalities with isolation fence and gate legislation was compared to that in municipalities with less or no legislation. Individual level descriptive analysis was conducted using data collected from files at the Ontario Provincial Coroner’s office for all children under the age of 5 who suffered drowning deaths in private backyard pools over a fifteen year period. Drowning death rates were calculated per 100 000 population. Denominators for rates were yearly estimates of population under the age of 5 for each municipality. Poisson regression methods were used to estimate relative risks and 95% confidence intervals. Additionally, univariate analysis was conducted and descriptive statistics were reported to summarise the characteristics of childhood backyard pool drownings. Results During the study period, 54 children under the age of 5 drowned in a private backyard pool in Ontario. The highest death rate was found among 2 year olds (0.9 per 100 000) and the male to female ratio was 3.5:1. The majority of children (61%) drowned after accessing an unobstructed pool directly from the residence. (Results of Poisson regression to be updated). Conclusions The results of the study demonstrate the need for isolation fencing bylaws that do not allow direct access from the building, and do not allow fences to be “grandfathered” under existing legislation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".