A 20-Year Comparison of Football-Related Injuries in American and Canadian Youth Aged 6 to 17 Years
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Little is known about Canadian youth football injuries. The objectives of this study were (a) to contrast the injuries in Canadian and American football players aged 6 to 17 years and (b) compare the injuries sustained during organized football with those in nonorganized football. Methods Using a retrospective cohort design based on data from the Canadian Hospitals Injury Reporting and Prevention Program and the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System a comparison of injuries was made. Results Trends in injuries were comparable. Proportions and odds of injuries were similar, except for a few exceptions. In Canada, more girls were injured and fractures were more prevalent. Compared with nonorganized football, organized football players were older, involved more males, and suffered more traumatic brain injuries and injuries to their lower extremities. Conclusion Canadian and American youth football injuries were similar. The type of football, be it organized or nonorganized, has an impact on injuries.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it