Discordance Of Information From Adolescent Athletes, Parents and Coaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The objective was to determine the discordance between the adolescent athlete, the parent and the coach with respect to injury information. METHODS: In a pilot study, we followed 6 adolescent house league / elite soccer teams for one season. When an athlete was injured (denned as missing a practice or game), we conducted telephone interviews within 3 days and asked the athlete, parent and coach identical questions. These included injury date, time (morning, afternoon, evening), type (e.g. sprain), body part, side, activity (game, practice, recreational), location (field, home), and if first aid was provided. If one respondent answered, “I don't know”, responses were considered discordant only if the other two respondents disagreed with each other. RESULTS: There were 8 injuries/108 athletes (74.1 injuries/1000 athletes). This analysis includes answers for the 7/8 injuries where an interview was conducted within 3 days. Each source reported, “I don't know” or failed to answer a similar number of questions (child=7, coach=7, parent=9). There was no discordance for type, body part (we considered foot and toe to be congruent), side and location. There was discordance in 1/7 injuries for activity (coach reported game; others reported practice), and time (parent reported afternoon; others reported morning). There was discordance in 2/7 injuries for first aid (coach reported none and others reporting yes; parent reported yes and others reported no). The greatest discordance occurred for injury date. There was concordance for 3/7 injuries. The date was different by 1 day for 1 injury, 2 days for one injury, and 5 days for one injury. Finally, only the coach reported the date for the remaining injury. CONCLUSIONS: The results from this pilot study suggest that data obtained from the adolescent athlete, parent and coach generally appear similar to another for factual type injury data but date of injury was more variable. Given the number of non-responses and “I don't know”, investigators should prepare to have a second source of information available to obtain complete data for adolescent athlete injuries.
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 | 0.027 | 0.118 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".