Spinal Injuries in Canadian Ice Hockey: Documentation of Injuries Sustained from 1943-1999
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Study objectives were: (a) to examine the causes and incidence of major spinal cord injuries sustained by ice hockey players; and (b) to add recently reported Canadian cases to the Canadian Ice Hockey Spinal Injury Registry to determine the effectiveness of prevention efforts. METHODS: The study was a review of questionnaires returned retrospectively by physicians and other sources reporting ice hockey related spinal injuries in Canada. Physicians reported on the mechanism of injury, vertebral level of injury, presence of neurologic deficit, type of event, and type of fracture. RESULTS: Between 1943 and 1999, 271 major spinal injuries were reported in Canadian ice hockey players, of which 49.0% occurred to players 16-20 years of age. Ontario has had a disproportionately large number of injuries compared to some provinces, especially Quebec. Of the spinal cord injuries, 65.8% resulted from colliding with the boards, and 36.6% were due to players being pushed or checked from behind. The recent survey shows that there has been a decline in the number of major spinal cord injuries in Canadian ice hockey, especially those causing paralysis due to checking or pushing from behind. CONCLUSIONS: Impact of the head with the boards after being checked or pushed from behind was the most common mechanism of spinal cord injury. Injury prevention programs are becoming effective in reducing the overall number of injuries, especially those due to checking from behind. Greater awareness of the occurrence and mechanisms of injury through educational programs and rules changes by organized hockey have reduced the annual incidence of catastrophic spinal injuries in Canadian ice hockey.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".