Football Injuries during the World Cup 2002
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) World Cup is one of the largest, most popular sporting events but is associated with a certain risk of injury for the players. PURPOSE: Analysis of the incidence, circumstances, and characteristics of soccer injury during the World Cup 2002. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective survey. METHODS: The physicians of all participating teams reported all injuries after each match on a standardized injury report form. The response rate was 100%. RESULTS: A total of 171 injuries were reported from the 64 matches, which is equivalent to an incidence of 2.7 injuries per match; approximately 1 to 2 injuries per match resulted in absence from training or match. More than a quarter of all injuries were incurred without contact with another player, and 73% were contact injuries. Half of the contact injuries, or 37% of all injuries, were caused by foul play as rated by the team physician and the injured player. CONCLUSION: The incidence of injuries during the World Cup 2002 was similar to those reported for the World Cup in 1994 and in 1998. Increased awareness of the importance of fair play may assist in the prevention 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.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it