Identifying risk factors and implications for beach drowning prevention amongst an Australian multicultural community
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multicultural communities in Australia are recognised as a priority area for drowning prevention, but no evidence-based study has addressed their knowledge of beach safety. This study used an online survey tool to identify and examine risk factors relating to swimming ability, beach visitation characteristics and behaviour, and beach safety knowledge of the Australian Southern Asian community to assist in the development of future beach safety interventions. Data was obtained through 249 online and in-person surveys of people aged > 18 years. Most respondents reported poor swimming ability (80%), often swam in in the absence of lifeguards (77%), did not understand the rip current hazard (58%), but reported that they entered the water (76%) when visiting beaches. Close to one-quarter (28%) had not heard, or didn't know the purpose, of the red and yellow beach flags, which identify lifeguard supervised areas on Australian beaches. Length of time living in Australia is an important beach safety consideration for this community, with minimal differences in terms of gender and age. Those who have lived < 10 years in Australia visit beaches more frequently and are less likely to have participated in swimming lessons, be able to swim, heard of the flags or swim between them, understand rip currents, or have participated in a beach safety program. Very few (3%) respondents received beach safety information from within their own community. The importance of beach safety education and swimming lessons within the Southern Asian community should be prioritised for new and recent migrants to Australia.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".