MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2763143946 · doi:10.1093/pch/9.suppl_a.21a

12 Attitudes Towards the Use of Protective Equipment in Skateboarding Parks

2004· article· en· W2763143946 on OpenAlexaffabout
Craig Martin, Gary Joubert

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAdventure Sports and Sensation Seeking
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital of Western Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEmergency departmentPhysical therapyElbowSurgeryPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Skateboarding (SB) is a popular activity for millions of children/adolecents in the United States of America (USA) and Canada. SB injuries result in over 50,000 Emergency department (ED) visits/year in the USA. SB parks (SBP), designed specifically for SB are growing in popularity numbering over 2500 in the USA. Although protective equipment (PE) decreases injury risk, many youths do not wear PE while SB. To determine the attitudes of children/adolescents regarding the use of PE. Subjects ages 10 to 18 years at 5 SBP in Southwestern Ontario (SWO) were surveyed on use and attitudes towards PE. Data collected included years of SB experience, hours per week, type and frequency of use of PE (helmet, knee pads, elbow pads and wrist guards), number of injuries, visits to ED and their reasons for not wearing PE. Eighty-three subjects (78 males/5 females) completed the survey with an average age of 13.8 yrs and SB 24.1 hrs per week. 55.4% reported never wearing a helmet and 27.7% reported only wearing a helmet occasionally or with “high risk tricks”. 73.5% reported never wearing knee pads, 80.7% reported never wearing elbow pads and 81.9% reported never wearing wrist guards. The reasons for not using PE were: restricts movement (27.7%), uncomfortable (25.3%), and unnecessary (22.9%). The mean number of total injuries for each participant was 54.2, with 1.6 of these injuries requiring a visit to ED. 94% thought they could be seriously hurt while SB. 72.3% thought that protective gear would help protect against injury. 39 subjects surveyed reported never wearing any PE. These subjects were of older age (14.26 years) and had similar SB experience (2.6 yrs). They reported less total injuries (42.6) and less visits to the ED (1.4). Of the 39, 61.5% believe that they could be seriously hurt while SB and that PE prevented injury. This study suggest that there is a very low prevalence of protective gear use in SWO SBP. Low use of PE is not due to a lack of understanding, but instead to a lack of willingness. Future studies in the area should focus on promotion to create a desire to wear PE or enforcement of PE use.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.126
Threshold uncertainty score0.250

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.270 · 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

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child HealthSame topicAdventure Sports and Sensation SeekingFrench-language works237,207