The prevalence and recovery of concussed male and female collegiate athletes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The aims of the present study were two‐fold: (1) to examine whether gender and explanatory style influence the number of concussions an athlete has sustained and the amount of time to recover from this type of injury; and (2) to determine whether gender and the type of sport influence the number of and recovery from concussion injuries. University varsity athletes (n=170) who had sustained at least one concussion over the previous 12 months from six sports completed both the Sport History Questionnaire (Delaney, Lacroix, Leclerc, & Johnston, 2000), used to measure concussions, and the Attributional Style Questionnaire (Peterson et al., 1982), used to measure explanatory style. Overall, males sustained more concussions than female athletes (F 1,153=43.92, P<0.05). Regarding the type of concussion, male athletes sustained more unrecognized concussions than female athletes (F 1,168=6.18, P<0.05), but there was no difference between the sexes for recognized concussions (F 1,168=0.44, P>0.05). Male basketball players took longer to recover (mean=6.17 days) than female basketball players (mean=1.15 days). In contrast, female hockey players took longer to recover (mean=9.56 days) than male hockey players (mean=1.00 day). Finally, gender did not influence an athlete's explanatory style.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".