MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4381386961 · doi:10.1017/s1049023x23002303

Review of Canadian Legislation on Mass Gathering Medical Response

2023· article· en· W4381386961 on OpenAlexaffabout
Marc-Antoine Pigeon, Attila J. Hertelendy, Alexander Hart, Jennifer Hsueh, Gregory R. Ciottone

Bibliographic record

VenuePrehospital and Disaster Medicine · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTravel-related health issues
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegislationMass gatheringLegislatureRevenueData collectionBusinessMedical emergencyPublic healthGeographyPublic administrationMedicinePolitical scienceLawFinanceSociologyNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Mass gatherings have become more frequent since the beginning of the 21st century. In Canada alone, music festival and sporting event industries will each represent yearly revenues over one billion USD by 2025. Such events require adequate medical planning, as they are associated with a greater prevalence of injuries and incidents than daily life, despite most participants having few comorbidities. Most often, the responsibility of medical planning lies with event producers. This study aims to compare the existing legislative requirements for mass gathering medical response in the ten provinces and three territories of Canada. Method: This study is a cross-sectional descriptive study of legislation. Lists of legislative requirements were obtained by contacting via email or phone the emergency medical services (EMS) directors and Health Ministries of all the provinces and territories of Canada, and asking about any legislation or provision within existing laws regarding mass gatherings. Simple statistics were performed to compare legislation across provinces and territories. Results: Data collection and analysis are planned to be completed by December 31, 2022. Initial data collection and analysis revealed that none of the seven provinces who answered our emails have provincial legislations. Two referred to specific provisions in the Public Health laws of their province, though nothing specifically refers to mass gatherings. One confirmed that mass gathering medical response was a municipal/local concern to be addressed by the event producers and the locality where the event takes place, and one referred to guidelines published in 2014. Conclusion: Although some provinces and territories referred to provisions contained in public health legislation, none of the provinces reached to date could list specific legislation on mass gathering medical response. If this trend continues through full data analysis, it will highlight once more the need to provide more standardized guidance to organizers and municipalities in planning medical response.

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)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.087
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.142
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.087
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0240.033
Science and technology studies0.0080.005
Scholarly communication0.0070.002
Open science0.0060.003
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.002

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.290 · 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
GenreReview

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
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePrehospital and Disaster MedicineSame topicTravel-related health issuesFrench-language works237,207