Preliminary Evaluation of Selected Hockey Equipment Tested according to EN TS15256: Protective Clothing—Hand, Arm, Leg, Genital, and Neck Protectors for Use in Ice Hockey—Protectors for Players Other than Goalkeepers—Requirements and Test Methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Several randomly selected models of three types of protective equipment for ice hockey, protective cups, shoulder pads, and shin pads, were tested according to CEN/TS 15256. Three of the nine models of genital protectors, three of the four models of shoulder pads, and four of the fifteen models of shin pads exceeded the threshold limits defined in the Technical Specification. However, these results were not well correlated with injury data to these regions of the body as provided by Hockey Canada. It would appear that the test protocols stated in TS 15256 are not reflective of the reality of the game of ice hockey and if used are likely to drive very adequately functioning equipment from the hockey market. Substantial changes to the test methods must be considered as standards and technical specifications, or both, for personal protective equipment for ice hockey are developed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".