DOES BODY CHECKING POLICY TO DISALLOW BODY CHECKING REDUCE THE RISK OF INJURY AND CONCUSSION IN 11 AND 12-YEAR-OLD NON-ELITE ICE HOCKEY PLAYERS IN CANADA?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Ice hockey has high participation and injury rates in youth in Canada. Body checking (BC) is the predominant mechanism of injury. Research has informed policy change disallowing BC in non-elite Pee Wee leagues (ages 11–12) in some provinces. Objective The objective of this study was to determine if the risk of injury and concussion differ for non-elite Pee Wee ice hockey players in leagues where BC is permitted (Alberta) versus leagues where policy no longer permits BC (Ontario). Methods This is a cohort study completed in Alberta and Ontario during the 2011/2012 season. Players were from Pee Wee teams in the lower 70% of divisions of play. A previously validated injury surveillance system was used to collect preseason, exposure and injury data. Results Forty-four teams from Alberta (n=658) and 32 from Ontario (n=258) participated. There were 144 injuries (Incidence Proportion (IP)=21.88 (95% CI 18.78 to 25.24)) and 83 concussions (IP)=12.61 (95% CI 10.17 to 15.4)) in Alberta and 17 injuries (IP=6.59 (95% CI 3.88 to 10.34)) and 11 concussions (IP=4.26 (95% CI 2.15 to 7.5)) in Ontario. The Alberta versus Ontario Risk Ratio was 3.34 (95% CI 2.06 to 5.41) for all injury and 2.96 (95% CI 1.6 to 5.46). for concussion. Significance There was a 3-fold increased risk of injury and concussion in non-elite Pee Wee ice hockey players in leagues where BC is permitted compared to a cohort where BC is no longer permitted. These findings have important implications for further BC policy change to reduce the public health burden of injury and concussion in youth ice hockey.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".