Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to characterize incidents resulting in fatal and non-fatal catastrophic injuries in circus. Since there was no usable data in the scientific literature or occupational databases, a systematic search of the gray literature was used to identify incidents that occurred between January 2000 and March 2020 in which a circus artist or technician incurred catastrophic injury. Mortality rates were estimated. Thirty-eight incidents that resulted in 39 catastrophic injuries (n=20 fatal; n=19 non-fatal, including n=14 spinal cord injury, n=3 serious head injury, n=2 unknown) were described. For artists (n=32), incidents occurred during performance (n=22) and training or rehearsals (n=10), with the majority in the aerial discipline (n=21) followed by ground acrobatics (apparatus propulsion) (n=6). The mechanisms of injury were direct contact with the ground (n=31), direct contact with an object (n=1) and direct contact with another artist (n=1) for artists, and direct contact with an object (n=4) and electrocution (n=2) for technicians. Ten-year mortality rates were estimated as 0/100,000 students, 37.5/100,000 FTE for artists and 25.0/100,000 FTE for technicians. Most catastrophic incidents that occurred in circus contexts were characterized as falls (direct contact with the ground) during professional performance. The understanding gained from these data provides a starting point, but more detailed reporting is needed to properly support informed decision-making to improve safety in circus. Cette étude avait pour but de caractériser des incidents entraînant des blessures graves (mortelles ou non) dans le milieu du cirque. Comme il n’existait pas de données exploitables ni dans la littérature scientifique ni dans les bases de données professionnelles, une recherche systématique a été conduite sur la documentation parallèle. Cette recherche a permis d’identifier des incidents survenus entre janvier 2000 et mars 2020 ayant entraîné une blessure grave chez un·e circassien·ne ou un·e technicien·ne. On a également estimé le taux de mortalité. Nous avons répertorié 38 incidents ayant provoqué 39 blessures graves (n = 20 mortelles; n = 19 non mortelles, dont n = 14 lésions médullaires, n = 3 traumatismes crâniens graves et n = 2 blessures inconnues). Pour les artistes (n = 32), les incidents se sont produits pendant les performances (n = 22) et l’entraînement/les répétitions (n = 10). La majorité des incidents concernaient les disciplines aériennes (n = 21) ainsi que les acrobaties au sol impliquant la propulsion (n = 6). Le mécanisme de blessure pouvait provenir du contact direct avec le sol (n = 31), du contact direct avec un objet (n = 1) et du contact direct avec un·e autre artiste (n = 1). Pour les technicien·ne·s, il s’agissait du contact direct avec un objet (n = 4) et d’une électrocution (n = 2). Sur dix ans, le taux de mortalité a été estimé à 0/100 000 élèves, 37,5/100 000 ETP pour les artistes et 25/100 000 ETP pour les technicien·ne·s. La plupart des incidents graves survenus dans un contexte circassien ont été catégorisés comme des chutes (contact direct avec le sol) lors d’une performance professionnelle. La compréhension de ces données offre un point de départ, mais il est nécessaire de constituer un rapport plus détaillé sur lequel s’appuyer pour prendre des décisions avisées et améliorer la sécurité dans les arts du cirque.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.922 | 0.898 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".