Injuries in recreational curling include head injuries and may be prevented by using proper footwear
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Our study examines a recreational curling population to describe patterns of injury occurrence, estimate risk of injury and to gauge attitudes towards equipment-based prevention strategies. METHODS: In a retrospective case series, we queried the Canadian Hospitals Injury Reporting and Prevention Program (CHIRPP), a national injury surveillance database, for curling injuries entered between 1993 and 2011. Kingston General Hospital and Hotel Dieu Hospital provide the two Kingston, Ontario, sites for emergency department (ED) care and participate in CHIRPP. Each retrieved entry underwent a chart review. A secondary survey was mailed to select individuals who had experienced curling injuries to solicit details on their injury and attitudes towards equipment to prevent injury. We used descriptive statistics for rates and proportions. RESULTS: Over 90% of acute curling injuries resulted from a fall, and 31.7% were head impacts. We found that acute injuries requiring ED presentation occur at a rate of approximately 0.17 per 1000 athlete-exposures (95% CI: 0.12-0.22). The secondary survey was completed by 54% of potential respondents. Of survey respondents, 41.3% attributed their fall to a lack of proper footwear and 73.5% of respondents agreed with mandatory sport-specific footwear as a prevention strategy, but only 8% agreed with mandatory helmet wear. CONCLUSION: Although curling injuries requiring medical care are not common, head injuries make up a large proportion. Mandated use of appropriate footwear appears to be the most effective prevention strategy, as well as the measure deemed most acceptable by players.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".