Análisis de incidentes por resbalones ocurridos en piscinas de España, 2000-2015
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Las piscinas son una fuente común de caídas inducidas por resbalones, con importantes costes socioeconómicos y severas consecuencias para la salud de las víctimas. El objetivo principal fue examinar información sobre factores de riesgo y conocer los mecanismos causales de sucesos lesivos inducidos por resbalamientos asociados a piscinas de uso colectivo. Se realizó un estudio observacional de tipo descriptivo a partir de fuentes judiciales con emplazamiento en la población española para el período 2000-2015. El mecanismo causal más habitual fue la caída al mismo nivel (79,2%) inducida por un resbalón cuando el sujeto caminaba (65,6%) sobre un suelo resbaladizo (35,2%) en presencia de agua (64,8%), siendo el andén que circunda el vaso la localización más citada (19,2%). Los resbalamientos son prevenibles y la aplicación efectiva de normas internacionales sobre superficies resistentes al deslizamiento puede dotar mayores garantías para la protección de la salud de los usuarios. Swimming pools are a common source of slip-induced falls, with a high socioeconomic cost and severe consequences for victim’s health conditions. The main objective was to examine risk factors and know mechanisms of slip-induced injuries associated with public swimming pools. A descriptive observational study of the Spanish population was conducted, using data from judicial sources from 2000 to 2015. In most cases, the common mechanism of the injury was a slip-induced fall at the same level (79.2%) originated while the subject was walking (65.6%) on a slippery floor (35.2%) with water (64.8%), being walkable area around a pool basin was the most cited location (19.2%). Slips are preventable and the effective application of international standards regarding slide-resistant surfaces could provide more reliable guarantee to protect the user health in swimming pools.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".