Terrain park injuries and risk factors in western Canadian resorts, 2008–2009 to 2017–2018: insights for risk management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Terrain parks (TP) are popular attractors to snowsport resorts for both skiers and snowboarders, however there is some concern about the risk of severe injury. TP risk management needs to balance the business case against the human cost of injury. To inform effective TP risk management strategies, it essential to understand risk factors, and injury frequency and severity. To this end, a retrospective inductive analysis of Canada West Ski Areas Association's Accident Analyzer database (2008–2009 to 2017–2018). Inclusion criteria., (i) at least 8 seasons of matching injury and participation data, (ii) minimum of 10 TP injuries p.a., (iii) activity either skiing or snowboarding, and (iv) injury location was coded as terrain park/rail. Data was excluded for ticket type N/A. Anonymised and deidentified secondary data was entered into SPSS for analysis. Between group differences were explored via χ 2 analysis with Yates' Continuity Correction for 2 × 2 tables and an inductive data driven approach to explore other factors. From this data, 12,602 injuries were in TPs across 28 resorts. 11,940 (94.7%) met the inclusion criteria (14.2% female; 86.5% <25 years; 73.0% snowboarders. 50.8% were male snowboarders <25 years). Higher levels of helmet use were not correlated with a decline in reported head injuries. Day-ticket holders were more likely to be injured on their first two uses of a run than season pass holders. More snowboarders injured in TPs (59.7%) went to hospital than skiers (51.0%). Thus, participants injured in TP are typically younger, male, and snowboarders with either a Season Pass or day ticket, thus potentially a distinct target group for injury mitigation and prevention strategies and communications. The application of other frameworks such as the hierarchy of control and socioecological framework reflects the complex multifactorial systems in which snowsports occur and from which more targeted risk management strategies may emerge to mitigate injury risk while maintaining TP appeal.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".