MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Video gaming promotes concussion knowledge acquisition in youth hockey players

2005· article· en· W2073876311 on OpenAlexafffund
David Goodman, Nori Bradley, Bradley S. Paras, I. Williamson, James Bizzochi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Adolescence · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchHealth Canada
KeywordsVideo gamePsychologyConcussionUsabilityApplied psychologyGame playMultimediaPoison controlInjury preventionHuman–computer interactionComputer scienceMedicineMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While the positive uses for video games in an educational setting have also been established, the educational aim is usually made explicit. The goal of this research was to develop a video game wherein the educational aspect was implicitly embedded in the video game, such that the gaming activity remained interesting and relevant. Following a pilot study to confirm the usability of an in-house developed game, two studies were conducted with 11-17 year old hockey players (N(1)=130, N(2)=39). Results demonstrated that participants playing the experimental version of the video game scored significantly higher on a concussion symptoms questionnaire, in a significantly faster time, than participants playing the control version of the game. Most participants indicated that they enjoyed the game and would play it again. These results suggest that educational material can be conveyed successfully and in an appealing manner via video game play.

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)0.000
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.293 · 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

Citations79
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of AdolescenceSame topicTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207