MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1987960783 · doi:10.1520/jai101864

Measuring Athlete Exposure and Body Contact Using Time-on-Task Technology in Ice Hockey

2009· article· en· W1987960783 on OpenAlexaffabout
Brent E. Faught, Joseph Baker, John Cairney, Paul Corey, William Montelpare, Murray Nystrom

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of ASTM International · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicWinter Sports Injuries and Performance
Canadian institutionsLakehead UniversityYork UniversityPublic Health OntarioMcMaster UniversityToronto Public HealthBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIce hockeyBody contactTask (project management)Materials sciencePhysical medicine and rehabilitationEngineeringMedicineSystems engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract It is common for athlete exposure (AE) and body contact (BC) to be incorrectly estimated in epidemiologic research due to the technical challenges associated with field-based research in ice hockey. Time-on-task technology has shown promise in accurately quantifying AE and BC using computer technology through direct measurement during real time games. The purpose of this prospective cohort study was to adopt time-on-task technology to monitor AE and BC in Atom hockey players who were permitted body checking versus those not allowed to body check. We evaluated 579 boys (age 9–10 year olds) from 42 representative Atom hockey teams over 107 games during the 2003–2004 regular season from five hockey associations using a time-on-task computing program running on a tablet computer. Body checking was allowed in four associations [Northern Ontario Hockey Association (NOHA), Minor Hockey Alliance of Ontario, Ontario Minor Hockey Association, Greater Toronto Hockey League], while one association was non-body checking (HNO). Body contact was 4.5 times greater in the body checking associations versus the non-body checking association per game. No significant difference in mean AE per game was found between body checking and non-body checking associations. However, greater AE was reported in NOHA games compared to the remaining four associations. Conversely, BC in the NOHA was significantly less compared to the remaining body checking associations, but not the HNO. Time-on-task technology was valuable in monitoring AE and BC, accounting for variability in individual players. Expected AE and BC was observed between checking and non-body checking associations. Unexpectedly larger AE in NOHA is attributed to smaller team roster size and longer duration games. Furthermore, decreased BC in NOHA players may be due to smaller roster size intrinsic factors contributing to the inverse relationship between AE and BC. Time-on-task technology is valuable in monitoring AE and BC in Atom ice hockey. This is a practical method of monitoring important aspects of the game.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.254
Threshold uncertainty score0.308

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.257 · 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.

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

Citations2
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of ASTM InternationalSame topicWinter Sports Injuries and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207