MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4207058403 · doi:10.53350/pjmhs22161149

Frequency Distribution of Demographic Variables among Victims of Burns of Domestic Violence – A cross-sectional study

2022· article· en· W4207058403 on OpenAlexaff
Javaid Munir, Zia Ul Haq, Ambreen Serwer, Naz Batool, Muhammad Anwar Sibtain Fazli, Zulfiqar Ali Buzdar

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBurn Injury Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsContinental (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMarital statusLiteracyDemographyDomestic violenceCross-sectional studyMedicinePopulationFamily incomeInjury preventionPoison controlEnvironmental healthPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Burns are common occurrences of daily routine. The working environment and accidents invariably result in burns which unfortunately cannot be stopped. There definitely are certain factor which need to be assessed and addressed. Demographic variables like that of age, gender, marital status, family size, gross family income, literacy grades and occupation could be one of the vital aspects which need further research exploration to see frequencies of burns incidents. Aim: To assess the most involved demographic variables in frequency of burns incidents for domestic violence. Methods: The study population comprised of 250 unfortunate victim of burns of domestic violence reported in the Accident and Emergency Department of Mayo Hospital Lahore between December 2017 to August 2018. Results: The study revealed the minor age groups, females more than males, married adults, average family size, middle socio-economic class, lower grades of literacy and labor class subjects suffer the higher frequencies of burns incidents. Keywords: Age, Gender, Family Size, Marital Status, Income, Literacy Level, Occupation, Burns, Frequency

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBurn Injury Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207