MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2094450561 · doi:10.1016/j.pmrj.2011.05.013

Proceedings From the Ice Hockey Summit on Concussion: A Call to Action

2011· article· en· W2094450561 on OpenAlexaff
Aynsley M. Smith, Michael J. Stuart, Richard M. Greenwald, Brian W. Benson, David W. Dodick, Carolyn A. Emery, Jonathan T. Finnoff, Jason P. Mihalik, William O. Roberts, Carol‐Anne Sullivan, Willem Meeuwisse

Bibliographic record

VenuePM&R · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsOntario Neurotrauma FoundationMinistry of the Environment, Conservation and ParksParks CanadaUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIce hockeyConcussionSummitAction planAction (physics)Medical educationMedicinePsychologyPoison controlPublic relationsInjury preventionPolitical sciencePhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedical emergencyManagementGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this proceeding is to integrate the concussion in sport literature and sport science research on safety in ice hockey to develop an action plan to reduce the risk, incidence, severity, and consequences of concussion in ice hockey. METHODS: A rationale paper outlining a collaborative action plan to address concussions in hockey was posted for review 2 months before the Ice Hockey Summit: Action on Concussion. Focused presentations devoted specifically to concussion in ice hockey were presented during the Summit, and breakout sessions were used to develop strategies to reduce concussion in the sport. This proceedings and a detailed scientific review (a matrix of solutions) were written to disseminate the evidence-based information and resulting concussion reduction strategies. The manuscripts were reviewed by the authors, advisers, and contributors to ensure that the opinions and recommendations reflect the current level of knowledge on concussion in hockey. RESULTS: Six components of a potential solution were articulated in the Rationale paper and became the topics for breakout groups that followed the professional, scientific lectures. Topics that formed the core of the action plan were metrics and databases; recognizing, managing, and returning to play; hockey equipment and ice arenas; prevention and education; rules and regulations; and expedient communication of the outcomes. The attendees in breakout sessions identified action items for each section. The most highly ranked action items were brought to a vote in the open assembly by using an Audience Response System. The strategic planning process was conducted to assess the following: Where are we at? Where must we get to? What strategies are necessary to make progress on the prioritized action items? CONCLUSIONS: Three prioritized action items for each component of the solution and the percentage of the votes received are listed in the body of this proceeding.

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)0.067
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.097
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.067
Threshold uncertainty score0.355

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0670.097
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.005
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0110.005
Scholarly communication0.0260.013
Open science0.0060.018
Research integrity0.0320.033
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0480.033

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 head0.207
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.162 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePM&RSame topicTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207