MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

PW 1937 Socioeconomic differences in equipment-based playground injuries in ontario: a population-based study

2018· article· en· W2893240082 on OpenAlexaffabout
Tanita Siladi, Sarah A. Richmond, Evelyn Pyper, Andrew S. Wilton, Alison Macpherson

Bibliographic record

VenueAbstracts · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInjury Epidemiology and Prevention
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocioeconomic statusInjury preventionPoison controlOccupational safety and healthEnvironmental healthDemographyHuman factors and ergonomicsNeighbourhood (mathematics)Suicide preventionPopulationMedicineMedical emergencyGerontologyGeographySociologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<h3>Background</h3> One of the most fundamental and formative aspects of childhood is play- which in Canada, frequently takes place on playgrounds. Previous research has shown that upgrading playground structures to comply with the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) standards, mitigates the effect of socioeconomic-status (SES) on playground injuries. Ontario government regulations require playgrounds to meet CSA standards if children in daycare use them. Objective The objective of this study was to examine the relationship between children’s falls from playground equipment and SES following compliance with CSA standards, and to examine injury trends from 2008–2015 in Ontario. <h3>Methods</h3> Population-based data from the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences was used, and includes all Emergency-Department (ED) visits and hospitalizations with the ICD-10 code W09 representing falls from playground equipment. The denominator for this study was the number of children in Ontario (1–19 years) and rate per 1 00 000 was calculated from 2008–2015. SES was based on income-quintile of the child’s neighbourhood. <h3>Results</h3> There were 7,505 ED visits in 2008 vs 10 426 in 2015 (39% increase) and injury-rates demonstrated that children that live in the poorest (Quintile-1) neighbourhoods had lower playground injury rates than those in Quintile-5 (rates of 256.26, 334.3 respectively). Both income-quintiles (1 and 5) had a 45% increase over the study period and the five-to-nine age group was seen to be at highest risk of injury (average rate 551.6). <h3>Conclusion</h3> The results suggest that playground injury rates in Ontario, where most playgrounds meet the CSA standards, increase by SES status, with the wealthiest children at highest risk of injury. Differences recorded in this study may reflect differences in exposure to playgrounds (i.e., wealthier children may have more exposure to playgrounds). However, the changes to the SES/playground injury association suggests that policy changes to the built environment can modify vulnerable children’s incidence of injury.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.464
Threshold uncertainty score0.927

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAbstractsSame topicInjury Epidemiology and PreventionFrench-language works237,207