Exploring Minor Hockey Players' Knowledge and Attitudes Toward Concussion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate minor hockey players' attitudes and knowledge about sport concussions. PARTICIPANTS: Male and female Pee Wee, Bantam, and Midget level players (n = 183) participating in minor hockey and a comparison group of non-hockey players (n = 57). DESIGN: Survey. MAIN MEASURES: Player knowledge and attitudes were evaluated with a standardized questionnaire developed for the purpose of this study. Descriptive statistics including cross-tabulations and proportion comparisons were used to report the data. RESULTS: Players had foundational knowledge about concussions; however, more than half underestimated the prevalence and more than 30% were unaware of return to play protocols. Although nearly all players knew what they "should" do when concussed, 33% did not follow recommendations. Players reported more concern and appreciation of the seriousness of concussion than non-players, but they tended to minimize their vulnerability. The most common and helpful information sources were parents, doctors, and coaches, and therefore knowledge translation efforts should target theses audiences. CONCLUSION: Young athletes continue to demonstrate gaps in their knowledge of concussions. In addition, attitudes toward concussion suggest a developmental trajectory with younger athletes being most likely to ignore current recommended guidelines.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".