MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2100158826 · doi:10.1093/arclin/acp005

Neuropsychological Consequences of Boxing and Recommendations to Improve Safety: A National Academy of Neuropsychology Education Paper

2009· article· en· W2100158826 on OpenAlexaff
Robert L. Heilbronner, Shane S. Bush, Lisa Ravdin, Jeffrey T. Barth, Grant L. Iverson, Ronald M. Ruff, Melanie Lovell, William Barr, Ruben J. Echemendía, Donna K. Broshek

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Clinical Neuropsychology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeuropsychologyAthletesPsychologyPsychiatryChronic traumatic encephalopathyAppealNeuropsychological assessmentInjury preventionMedicinePoison controlMedical emergencyPhysical therapyConcussionCognitionPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Boxing has held appeal for many athletes and audiences for centuries, and injuries have been part of boxing since its inception. Although permanent and irreversible neurologic dysfunction does not occur in the majority of participants, an association has been reported between the number of bouts fought and the development of neurologic, psychiatric, or histopathological signs and symptoms of encephalopathy in boxers. The purpose of this paper is to (i) provide clinical neuropsychologists, other health-care professionals, and the general public with information about the potential neuropsychological consequences of boxing, and (ii) provide recommendations to improve safety standards for those who participate in the sport.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
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: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0060.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.143
GPT teacher head0.506
Teacher spread0.364 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations61
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of Clinical NeuropsychologySame topicTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207