MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Walking in Winter

2010· book-chapter· en· W4233024585 on OpenAlexaffabout
Yue Li, Brandi Row, Jennifer Hsu, Geoff Fernie

Bibliographic record

VenueBENTHAM SCIENCE PUBLISHERS eBooks · 2010
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicWinter Sports Injuries and Performance
Canadian institutionsToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgency (philosophy)ClothingSnowSnow removalEngineeringBusinessGeographyMeteorologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Winter in many parts of Canada and the US is an enormous problem for older people. We know that every winter there are many older people who do not get out of their houses for up to three months because they cannot move around safely in the snow, ice, or slushy conditions. This paper describes our efforts at the Toronto Rehabilitation Institute to address the difficulties faced by vulnerable people in winter. The first challenge comes from identifying their perceptions of problems caused by winter. We have subsequently studied the physiologic response to cold and outdoor walking behaviour in wintry conditions in order to understand the problems in greater depth and be able to develop solutions. Emphasis has also been given to investigation of the reported difficulty donning and doffing winter jackets and coats and the effectiveness and safety of winter footwear. Our continuing effort will be focused on the universal design of streetscapes, street furniture, winter clothing, footwear, and improved assistive mobility devices. We are also determining safe exposure levels to cold weather in order to inform the public of the risks associated with mobility in winter and to provide objective criteria for public agency responses to ensure safety and social interventions to reduce isolation in winter.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.308
Threshold uncertainty score0.613

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0320.006

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 head0.257
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBENTHAM SCIENCE PUBLISHERS eBooksSame topicWinter Sports Injuries and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207