MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1992987082 · doi:10.1097/jsm.0b013e31819d658e

Examining Attitudes Toward Body Checking, Levels of Emotional Empathy, and Levels of Aggression in Body Checking and Non-Body Checking Youth Hockey Leagues

2009· article· en· W1992987082 on OpenAlexaffabout
Carolyn A. Emery, Carly McKay, Tavis S. Campbell, Alexis Peters

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Journal of Sport Medicine · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTattoo and Body Piercing Complications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmpathyLeagueAggressionMedicinePhysical therapyPoison controlInjury preventionIce hockeyPsychologyConfidence intervalBody mass indexClinical psychologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPsychiatryMedical emergencyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To determine if attitudes associated with body checking, emotional empathy, and aggression differ between players in body checking and non-body checking hockey leagues and to determine the influence of these attitudes on injury rates. DESIGN: Prospective cohort. SETTING: Participants were randomly recruited by team from the Calgary Minor Hockey Association at the beginning of the 2006-2007 season. PARTICIPANTS: There were 283 participants from Pee Wee (aged 11-12 years), Bantam (aged 13-14 years), and Midget (aged 15-16 years) teams. Of 13 teams from the body checking league, 138 players participated, and of 24 teams in the non-body checking league, 145 players participated. ASSESSMENT OF RISK FACTORS: Participants completed 4 self-report questionnaires: (1) Medical Questionnaire, (2) Body Checking Questionnaire, (3) Empathy Index for Children and Adolescents, and (4) Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Participants were followed through the season for injury reports. The injury definition included any hockey injury resulting in medical attention, the inability to complete a hockey session, and/or missing a subsequent hockey session. RESULTS: Body checking players reported more positive attitudes toward body checking (35.59; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 34.52-36.65) than non-body checking players (22.43; 95% CI, 21.38-23.49; t = -17.34; P < 0.00005). There was no significant difference in the empathy scores between cohorts (t = 1.51, P = 0.13). The mean aggression score for the body checking players (76.22; 95% CI, 73.18-79.25) was significantly higher than the mean for the non-body checking players (70.57; 95% CI, 67.35-73.80; t = -2.52; P = 0.013). CONCLUSIONS: Body checking seems to influence attitudes toward body checking and aggression, but attitudes toward body checking, empathy, and aggression did not influence injury rates.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.198
GPT teacher head0.435
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations33
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Journal of Sport MedicineSame topicTattoo and Body Piercing ComplicationsFrench-language works237,207