Injuries in Canadian Youth Ice Hockey: The Influence of Relative Age
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between relative age and injury prevalence in Canadian youth ice hockey. METHODS: In study 1, youth ice hockey-related injuries (among children 10-15 years of age) collected by the Canadian Hospitals Injury Reporting and Prevention Program between 1995 and 2002 were analyzed. The relative ages of injured children were compared across different age groups and injury characteristics (mechanism of injury and severity of injury). In study 2, injuries reported in the Hockey Canada Insurance Database were analyzed. The relative ages of injured children at different levels of play (ie, representative versus house league teams) were compared. RESULTS: In study 1, the majority of injured players were of older relative age. However, relative age was not related to mechanism of injury or severity of injury. In study 2, approximately 40% of injured players at the highest level of play were relatively older, whereas only 20% to 25% of house league injured players were relatively older. CONCLUSION: Relatively older children within ice hockey age groups are at increased risk of injury compared with their younger peers. Furthermore, the risk of injury for relatively older players is greater at more competitive levels of play. This study proposes that the relative age advantage associated with selection to Canadian youth ice hockey teams is accompanied by an increased risk of injury.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".