MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2895194764 · doi:10.1017/s1049023x18000833

Mortality at Music Festivals: An Update for 2016-2017 – Academic and Grey Literature for Case Finding

2018· article· en· W2895194764 on OpenAlexaff
Sheila A. Turris, Tracie Jones, Adam Lund

Bibliographic record

VenuePrehospital and Disaster Medicine · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTravel-related health issues
Canadian institutionsSurrey Memorial HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrey literatureMusic festivalPeriod (music)AdvertisingCase fatality rateDemographySociologyMEDLINEVisual artsPopulationPolitical scienceArtBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2016, the authors published a paper on music festival fatalities between the years 1999 and 2014 (n=722). In this Special Report, they provide an update on fatalities reported at music festivals globally for the period 2016-2017 (n=201). Using a search strategy designed to capture grey literature and media reports of music festival fatalities, reports of the overall frequency and cause-of-death breakdown for publicly reported, festival-related deaths are recorded. This update shows an increase in the frequency of festival-related fatality reports during the new period, together with an increase in the number of deaths attributable to terror (n=60) and overdose/poisoning (n=41). Drawing conclusions about the cause of this increase is challenging given the growth in Internet use, online media reports, and number of music festivals occurring annually when compared with the previous reporting period. The authors re-emphasize the need for a uniform reporting standard and reliable epidemiological data for fatalities related to music festivals, mass gatherings, and special events. TurrisSA, JonesT, LundA. Mortality at music festivals: an update for 2016-2017 - academic and grey literature for case finding. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2018;33(5):553-557.

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)0.000
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 score0.274
Threshold uncertainty score0.853

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.304 · 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

Citations14
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePrehospital and Disaster MedicineSame topicTravel-related health issuesFrench-language works237,207