A survey of Canadian Alpine ski racing coaches regarding spinal protective devices for their athletes.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Spinal protective devices are a recent addition to the protective equipment worn by competitive and recreational alpine skiers and snowboarders. Their rate of use is not documented at the time of publication. The objective of this study was to examine the current attitudes and recommendations of Canadian alpine ski racing coaches towards spinal protective devices. METHODS: A convenience sample of alpine ski racing coaches across Canada were contacted in each provincial sport governing body in the ski racing community. A ten question online survey was attached to the initial email. Descriptive statistical analysis was utilized. RESULTS: A total of 29 Canadian alpine ski racing coaches completed the study survey. All participants were familiar with spinal protective devices and 51.7% of respondents reported that they do not actively enforce spinal protective device use with their ski racing athletes. 80% of respondents reported that their Canadian ski racing club did not have guidelines or policies regarding spinal protective device use. 86.2% of respondents were unaware if their provincial sport organization had a policy regarding their use. DISCUSSION: The majority of coaches reporting training athletes aged 10-15, which may help to explain why only half of those surveyed enforce the use of spinal protective devices. This group of athletes may not participate in speed events as frequently as older athletes, where the use of spinal protective devices is more common. CONCLUSION: The majority of Canadian Alpine ski coaches report a belief that spinal protective device use is important, however, far fewer enforce their use, or work in an environment with a policy requiring it. Further research is required to determine the differences in beliefs and practice.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".