MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2742333154 · doi:10.14423/smj.0000000000000678

Assessing Disaster Preparedness Among Select Children’s Summer Camps in the United States and Canada

2017· article· en· W2742333154 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueSouthern Medical Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDisaster Response and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePreparednessMedical emergencyTechnicianOccupational safety and healthEmergency managementSuicide preventionPoison controlEnvironmental healthManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Children's summer camps are at risk for multiple pediatric casualties during a disaster. The degree to which summer camps have instituted disaster preparedness is unknown. We assessed disaster preparedness among selected camps nationally for a range of disasters. METHODS: We partnered with a national, web-based electronic health records system to send camp leadership of 315 camp organizations a 14-question online survey of disaster preparedness. One response from each camp was selected in the following order of importance: owner, director, physician, nurse, medical technician, office staff, and other. The results were analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: A total of 181 camps responses were received, 169 of which were complete. Camp types were overnight (60%), day (21%), special/medical needs (14%), and other (5%). Survey respondents were directors (52%), nurses (14%), office staff (10%), physicians (5%), owners (5%), emergency medical technicians (2%), and other (12%). Almost 18% of camps were located >20 mi from a major medical center, and 36% were >5 mi from police/fire departments. Many camps were missing emergency supplies: car/booster seats for evacuation (68%), shelter (35%), vehicles for evacuation (26%), quarantine isolation areas (21%), or emergency supplies of extra water (20%) or food (17%). Plans were unavailable for the following: power outages (23%); lockdowns (15%); illness outbreaks (15%); tornadoes (11%); evacuation for fire, flood, or chemical spill (9%); and other severe weather (8%). Many camps did not have online emergency plans (53%), plans for children with special/medical needs (38%), methods to rapidly communicate information to parents (25%), or methods to identify children for evacuation/reunification with parents (40%). Respondents reported that staff participation in disaster drills varied for weather (58%), evacuations (46%), and lockdowns (36%). The majority (75%) of respondents had not collaborated with medical organizations for planning. CONCLUSIONS: A substantial proportion of camps were missing critical components of disaster planning. Future interventions must focus on developing summer camp-specific disaster plans, increasing partnerships, and reassessing national disaster plans to include summer camp settings.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.301
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.351 · 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