Drowning and near drowning among infants and toddlers in Canada, 1991-1998 : trends, incidence, and risk factors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Trends in incidence and risk factors for drowning among infants aged less than 1 and toddlers aged 1 to 4 in Canada from 1991--98 were compared to other injury deaths. Incidence, risk factors and in-hospital mortality of infant and toddler hospitalizations due to near drowning from 1994--98 were compared to other injuries. Drowning rates decreased by 79% among infants, from 1.4 per 100,000 person-years during 1991--94 to 0.3 during 1995--98 (0.001 < p < 0.0025 by chi2) and by 38% among toddlers, from 3.2 to 2.0 (p < 0.0005 by chi2). The rate of near drowning hospitalization among children aged 0--4 decreased by 30% from 1991--92 to 1997--98 (0.01 < p < 0.02 by chi2 for trends). Near drowning was the source of 5% of infant and 28% of toddler in-hospital injury deaths in 1994--98. The case-fatality ratio of near drowning hospitalizations was the highest of all injuries with 7% mortality among infants and 12% among toddlers. The decrease in incidence of drowning among infants and toddlers was not paralleled by a similar dramatic decrease in the incidence of other injury deaths in the same period in Canada, nor of near drowning hospitalization, and could be linked to prevention interventions from the Canadian Red Cross Society.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".