MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effect of Experience on Rodeo Injury

2002· article· en· W1976460847 on OpenAlexaffabout
Dale J. Butterwick, Willem Meeuwisse

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Journal of Sport Medicine · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicVeterinary Equine Medical Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompetitor analysisMedicinePhysical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMarketingBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To document injury rates, severity, and relative risk during five competitive seasons of Canadian professional rodeo, between experienced (saddle bronc [SB], bareback [BB], and bull riders [BR]) and inexperienced (novice saddle bronc [NSB], novice bareback [NBB], and boys' steer riders [BSR]) rough stock competitors. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Canadian professional rodeo competition. SUBJECTS: Experienced competitors included professional cowboys from Australia, Brazil, New Zealand, the United States, and Canada. Inexperienced competitors included cowboys from Canada and the United States. METHODS: Data was gathered prospectively at 63 of 323 professional rodeos in Canada from 1995 to 1999, constituting 30.8% of all professional rodeo performances during this time period. Injury data (severity and body part affected) was included when the injury occurred to a registered contestant, at a Canadian professional rodeo, at which the Canadian Professional Rodeo Sport Medicine Team was officially present and providing services. Data were collected by certified athletic therapists. MAIN RESULTS: Inexperienced rough stock competitors had a lower overall rate of injury in comparison to experienced competitors. In addition, inexperienced rough stock competitors had a lower injury rate of severe injuries, and a lower rate of injury to most body parts when compared with experienced competitors. Inexperienced competitors had a high rate of injury to the hand, wrist, and forearm. Most of these injuries to inexperienced contestants occurred to NBB (46%) and BSRs (31%). The relative risk of injury to inexperienced competitors did not differ from experienced competitors in the horse riding events (NSB vs. SB, NBB vs. BB), but the relative risk of injury to BSRs was one-half that of BR (0.49). CONCLUSIONS: Inexperienced competitors in rodeo rough stock events do not have increased rates of severe injury, or of injury to specific body parts (in general). Inexperienced competitors do have a greater rate of injury to the arm, hand, and wrist. The relative risk of BSR is one-half the risk of BR.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.709
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.220
GPT teacher head0.536
Teacher spread0.315 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations22
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Journal of Sport MedicineSame topicVeterinary Equine Medical ResearchFrench-language works237,207