The evaluation of a risky behavior tool in novice pediatric skiers and snowboarders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Skiing and snowboarding are risky sports, and the risk is often highest among youth. This study assesses the reliability of a Risky Behaviour and Actions Assessment Tool (RBAAT) in young, novice skiers and snowboarders. RBAAT was developed based on literature, communication with experts, and the Alpine Responsibility Code. Video footage was collected for 90-minute periods in the beginner area of the ski hill. A snowboard coach created and rated 100 video clips containing risky or non-risky behaviors. A ski patroller and a former ski instructor independently rated each video using the RBAAT and came to a final decision with the snowboard coach. Two RAs then used the RBAAT to assess behaviors among novice youth skiing and snowboarding at the ski hill. Percent agreement and kappa coefficients (95% CI) were calculated comparing the RA video ratings to the consensus and for the RA on-hill ratings. Comparing RA ratings with the consensus for any risky behavior in the video, there was 91.00% agreement (kappa: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.66-0.92). There was 91.63% agreement for any risky behavior seen on the hill between RAs (kappa: 0.78; 95% CI: 0.68-0.87). The RBAAT was reproducible for assessing risky ski and snowboard behaviors among beginner children.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".