Effects of Changing Body-Checking Rules on Rates of Injury in Minor Hockey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: In this study we explored the effects of the 2002 rule change in Ontario minor hockey, in which body-checking was introduced at the atom (ages 9-10) instead of the peewee (previously ages 12-13) age level. It was hypothesized that the introduction of body-checking at younger ages would result in higher overall rates of injury to minor hockey players, with concomitant increases in neurotraumatic injuries. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Participants included injured minor hockey players between the ages of 7 and 14 years in the Kingston area of Ontario, Canada. The Kingston sites of the Canadian Hospitals Injury Reporting and Prevention Program were used to identify injuries that presented to the only 2 emergency departments in this community. In our analyses, we compared rates and patterns of injury that required hospital-based emergency medicine care before (1997-1998 to 2001-2002 seasons) and after (2002-2003 to 2006-2007 seasons) implementation of the body-checking rule change. RESULTS: Overall rates of injury to minor hockey players declined in the years after the rule change. Rates of injury attributable to body-checking, as well as the natures and anatomic sites of injury caused by body-checking, remained consistent in the 2 study periods. CONCLUSIONS: In this historical study, we did not observe an increase in the overall rates of injury and concomitant neurotraumatic events. Increased enforcement of playing rules as well as temporal declines in emergency department use may have contributed to these findings.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".