Requisitos de seguridad frente al riesgo de atrapamiento en piscinas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Los atrapamientos de bañistas en las instalaciones de las piscinas son uno de los tipos de sucesos lesivos reconocidos a nivel mundial por sus trágicas consecuencias. Se realizó un estudio de la legislación sanitaria de piscinas con emplazamiento en la población española. Examinamos los parámetros normativos previstos en los reglamentos autonómicos de piscinas para el abordaje del riesgo de atrapamiento. Ninguna de las Comunidades Autónomas establece medidas de seguridad frente a las cinco modalidades de atrapamientos reconocidas, obviando las de tipo mecánico, extremidades y cabello. Encontramos 9 reglamentos con más de 15 años de antigüedad. Se identificó una falta de especificaciones técnicas sobre medidas de seguridad para cumplir con garantías las prescripciones normativas. Los reglamentos de piscinas analizados muestran una gran disparidad normativa en sus estrategias de protección de la seguridad de los bañistas, con medidas preventivas desiguales y un grado de fiabilidad cuestionable.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".