Musculoskeletal and Head Injuries in a Canadian Summer Camp: A Three-Year Surveillance Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Residential summer camps are popular among Canadian families. Campers are exposed to new, unfamiliar environments and engage in activities that may pose increased risk of injury. This study identifies the occurrence and management of musculoskeletal and head injuries at a Canadian residential summer camp. METHODS: This study was a three-year prospective observational cohort study, at a six-week Canadian residential summer camp. There were 1,388 residents, consisting of 51,546 camp days (CD). Injury data were collected by residential summer camp staff and confirmed by onsite medical professionals prior to being recorded in a secure database. Injuries were included if it was a musculoskeletal or head injury that occurred while engaged in a camp activity on or offsite, that necessitated medical attention, and that required removal or restriction from their normal camp routine for a minimum of 4 hours. RESULTS: There were 154 injuries, resulting in an incidence of 2.99 injuries per 1000 CD. Injuries were reported during scheduled activities (1.46/1000 CD) and free time (1.20/1000 CD). Sports was the most common activity during which injury occurred in all age groups (1.07/1000 CD), where males were injured twice as often as females. 65% of injuries occurred while under staff supervision. The lower extremity was the most affected body part (1.59/1000 CD). Sprains and strains accounted for 1.69 injuries/1000 CD. 83% of injuries were classified as significant and 89% of injuries were treated on-site. Over-the-counter analgesics were provided in 62% of senior camper injuries and 46% of junior camper and staff injuries. CONCLUSION: Most injuries in the residential camp setting are mild. Ensuring appropriate non-pharmacologic measures in addition to adequate analgesia may help shorten return to play.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".