MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2081880783 · doi:10.1260/174795409789577452

Injury Prevention: Avoiding One of Golf's More Painful Hazards

2009· article· en· W2081880783 on OpenAlexaff
David M. Lindsay, Theo Versteegh, Anthony A. Vandervoort

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Sports Science & Coaching · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSports Dynamics and Biomechanics
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRecreationInjury preventionPhysical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationSports injuryPsychologyMedicineHuman factors and ergonomicsPoison controlApplied psychologyMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although the sport of golf may be mistakenly perceived as a benign physical activity, there are in fact patterns of problems such as strains to the upper limb and low-back pain that have the potential to interfere with the professional golfer's livelihood and recreational golfer's enjoyment. In this article, a summary of the literature has been provided outlining the nature and extent of common musculoskeletal injuries that golfers deal with as well as some of the risk factors that may increase injury susceptibility. A detailed overview of prevention strategies to minimize the risk of suffering a golf injury has also been provided. Since many injuries arise from poor swing biomechanics, taking instruction with a knowledgeable golf instructor can be an important first step towards injury prevention. However, if a golfing client already has an injury which originated or is aggravated by playing or practicing, then the personalized help of a physician or physiotherapist experienced in golf biomechanics is also warranted. Proper attention to prevention will ensure a lifetime of enjoyable golf “par”ticipation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.528
Threshold uncertainty score0.405

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations6
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Sports Science & CoachingSame topicSports Dynamics and BiomechanicsFrench-language works237,207