Preliminary Evidence Of A Relationship Between Injury And Sport Camera Use In Winter Sliding Sports
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
PURPOSE: The accessibility of digital technologies has led to an increased use of video cameras in sliding winter sports. However, very little is known on the risks associated with the use of such equipment. In other contexts, camera use was associated with a social facilitation effect involving an increase in performance (Yu et al., 2015). In winter sliding sports like snowboard and alpine skiing, the culture is characterized by a valorization of risk taking (Anderson, 1999). This effect could translate in greater risk taking when a camera is around (Rodrigue et al, 2012). The aim of this study was to explore the relationship between camera use and injury risk in winter sliding sports, while considering psychosocial factors associated with injuries including age, sex, perceived skill level, intentional risk taking and personality traits (impulsivity and sensation seeking). METHODS: The study was a self-reported follow-up survey conducted online among canadian winter sliding sports athletes before and after a winter ski season within an interval of 4 months. RESULTS: Among the 224 adolescents and adults (121 men and 103 women) who completed the surveys, 32,6% were aged 14-25 years, 32,3% aged 26-25 years and 36,2% aged 36 years +. Descriptive statistics indicates that 37,1% were filmed during sports practice at least once during past 12 months prior to the study an 42,0% were filmed at least once during the follow-up ski season. Among them, 25,7% reported that they take more risks when they are filmed “sometimes”, “often” or “always”. A logistic regression analysis predicting the occurrence of an injury by the end of the ski season indicates that camera use during the ski season is significantly associated with injury risk (OR = 0,25 p < 0,001) even after including psychosocial factors usually associated with injury risk in the model, including intentional risk taking, perceived skill level and sensation seeking also being significant predictors of injury. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest a possible injury risk associated with the use of a camera on the slopes, partially explained by a social facilitation effect, but it is unclear at this moment if this risk could also involve the camera itself depending on the type of use (i.e. on a selfie stick). These results should be supported by objective data from an experimental design.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».