MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4367276727 · doi:10.18034/ra.v2i1.283

Comparison of nomenclature and classification systems of sport injuries in elected countries with Iran

2014· article· en· W4367276727 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Reza Safdari, A Reisalsadat, Ramin Kordi, B Majidi

Bibliographic record

VenueABC Research Alert · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInjury Epidemiology and Prevention
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChecklistThe InternetSports injuryInjury surveillanceDescriptive statisticsMedicineMedical emergencyInjury preventionComputer sciencePoison controlPsychologyPhysical therapyWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Today, sport injuries form considerable part of social events. Prevention and management of sport injuries necessitate the existence of a comprehensive system for recording and classification of data. The object of this research was study of specialized sport injuries classification system for modeling of national sport injury classification system. Methods: This descriptive-comparative study conducted in 2012 .The sport injuries classification systems in USA ,Canada, Australia and Iran were studied .Method for data gathering was checklist that completed with valid library and internet sources .Then, data analysis performed with comparative tables. Results: Results showed that developed countries were acted to existence of national sport injuries classification system. It adapted with international classification system of diseases and international classification of external causes of injuries .Iran lacks national sport injuries classification system. Conclusion: Designing and using of sport injuries national classification system will have important role in prevention and releasing of sport injuries in Iran. Designing of national sport injuries classification system using of developed countries experiences recommends.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.186

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.441
Teacher spread0.348 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueABC Research AlertSame topicInjury Epidemiology and PreventionFrench-language works237,207