Mermaid health — identifying health issues related to mermaiding
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mermaiding - swimming with a leg-covering monofin mimicking the tail of a mermaid - is an emerging aquatic activity, which has gained a marked popularity over the last few years. However, no study so far has documented the potential health issues or risks of injuries related to this practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study surveyed professional mermaids cumulating an estimated total of 19,147 h of in-water mermaiding, regarding their health issues and injuries. While mermaiding bears some risks, the occurrence of problematic conditions appears limited. Interestingly, the profile of health issues experienced by professional mermaids is unique and specific, and clearly different from both professional swimmers and surfers. RESULTS: Self-reported health issues related to mermaiding could be divided into issues specifically related to mermaiding activities (ear issues, reported by 87.5% of the respondents; sea life encounters, 50%; cold-related issues, 37.5%; compromised access to air, 25%), issues related to the tail and fins (back pain, 50%; lower limbs issues, 37.5%), and issues related to water quality (eye issues, 25%; waterborne diseases, 12.5%). Clear differences appear between professional and recreational mermaiding activities. CONCLUSIONS: The results presented here will help to build safer conditions for mermaiding activities and to develop adapted responses from health specialists to help this unique yet growing population of aquatic performers and athletes.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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 it