MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2168084539

A four year prospective study of injuries in elite Ontario youth provincial and national soccer players during training and matchplay.

2014· article· en· W2168084539 on OpenAlexaffabout
Milad Mohib, Nicholas Moser, Richard Kim, Maathavan Thillai, Robert Gringmuth

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSports injuries and prevention
Canadian institutionsCanadian Memorial Chiropractic College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmateurHumanitiesEliteMedicineAthletesPhysical therapyPolitical scienceArt
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: With over 200 million amateur players worldwide, soccer is one of the most popular and internationally recognized sports today. By understanding how and why soccer injuries occur we hope to reduce prevalent injuries amongst elite soccer athletes. METHODS: Via a prospective cohort, we examined both male and female soccer players eligible to train with the Ontario Soccer Association provincial program between the ages of 13 to 17 during the period of October 10, 2008 and April 20, 2012. Data collection occurred during all player exposures to potential injury. Exposures occurred at the Soccer Centre, Ontario Training grounds and various other venues on multiple playing surfaces. RESULTS: A total number of 733 injuries were recorded. Muscle strain, pull or tightness was responsible for 45.6% of all injuries and ranked as the most prevalent injury. DISCUSSION: As anticipated, the highest injury reported was muscular strain, which warrants more suitable preventive programs aimed at strengthening and properly warming up the players' muscles.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.148
Threshold uncertainty score0.298

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.216 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicSports injuries and preventionFrench-language works237,207