MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7015234143

Sentinel surveillance of emergency department presentations\nfor barbecue brush-related injuries: the electronic Canadian\nHospitals Injury Reporting and Prevention Program,\n2011 to 2017

2017· article· en· W7015234143 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed Central · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfection Control in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInjury surveillanceEmergency departmentBristlePoison controlInjury preventionBrush
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A barbecue (BBQ) brush is a common household item designed for cleaning grills used\nfor barbecuing. Data from the electronic Canadian Hospitals Injury Reporting and\nPrevention Program database were analysed to estimate the frequency of injuries related\nto BBQ brushes as a proportion of all injuries, as well as to describe characteristics associated\nwith such injury events. Between April 1, 2011 and July 17, 2017, BBQ brush\ninjuries were observed at a frequency of 1.5 cases per 100 000 eCHIRPP cases (N = 12).\nFindings suggest that in addition to risks associated with the ingestion of loose BBQ\nbrush bristles attached to foods, loose bristles could also result in injury via other\nmechanisms.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.987

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.319 · 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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed CentralSame topicInfection Control in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207