MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1936265824 · doi:10.1177/03635465030310040501

Injuries in Short Track Speed Skating

2003· article· en· W1936265824 on OpenAlexaff
Victor Lun, John E. McCall, Tom J. Overend

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Sports Medicine · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSports injuries and prevention
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpeed skatingAnkleMedicineIce hockeyPhysical therapyIncidence (geometry)Injury preventionPoison controlPhysical medicine and rehabilitationSurgeryEmergency medicineSimulationEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the pattern of injury in short track speed skating. PURPOSE: To investigate the incidence and characteristics of injuries in short track speed skating. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective study. METHODS: Ninety-five of 150 elite-level skaters (63.3%) were surveyed to collect information on training and competition load as well as on injuries sustained during the 1999-2000 competitive season. Injuries were characterized in terms of anatomic location, type of injury, time loss from training and competition, and circumstance of injury (acute onset during competition, on-ice practice, off-ice training, or insidious onset). RESULTS: Sixty-one of the 95 skaters (64.2%) reported sustaining at least one injury. The knee, ankle, spine, leg, and groin were the most commonly reported sites of injury. Skaters were also asked to list previous on-ice injuries. The two most common injuries occurring on-ice before the 1999-2000 season were lacerations from the knee down (11.1%) and ankle fractures (10.2%). CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest that there is a high incidence of injury in competitive short track speed skating.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations38
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of Sports MedicineSame topicSports injuries and preventionFrench-language works237,207