Foot Injuries at Music Festivals–One of the Most Common Presentations to On-site Medical Services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Foot injuries are a common patient presentation at music festivals, and are resource-intensive patient encounters by virtue of their comparative volume. There are no published accounts devoted to these ubiquitous, typical, predictable festival injuries leading to presentation to on-site medical services for treatment. Method: A retrospective chart review was performed of visits to medical services for first aid or medical care involving feet at a multi-day music festival in Canada. Data extracted included demographics, injury characteristics, and type of footwear. Encounters were classified as initial or repeat visits, and repeat visits were assessed for having had previous dressings applied. Results: Over the five day festival period, foot care visits accounted for 416 of 1129 (37%) patient presentations for minor care. Most common injuries were blisters (51%), ankle sprains (10%), lacerations (8%), abrasions (6%), and bug bites (6%). Footwear was reported as shoes (28%), shoes and socks (28%), flip-flops (19%), sandals (28%) and bare feet only (5%). The most common blister sites were toes (48%) and the posterior heel (17%). 12% of cases were repeat visits, and 50% of repeat visits were for dressings failure. Conclusion: Foot injuries make up a significant portion of presentations, and often re-presentations, to medical services at music festivals. Preparation for these common injuries should include (1) a dedicated and purposeful bandage selection and supply, (2) provider training in best foot care practices, including bombproof, danceable dressings, and (3) educational resources to inform attendees of risks and provide preventative upstream measures that might allow them to avoid injury.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".