Video analysis of blows to the head and face at the 1999 World Taekwondo Championships.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Limited research has been done on head blows that may result in mild traumatic brain injury in Taekwondo. The purpose of this study was to investigate the fighting conditions under which blows to the head commonly take place, with a view to determining the typical conditions under which injury may occur. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: videotape analysis (retrospective). SETTING: the semi-final and final matches (a total of 48 matches) at the 14th World Taekwondo Championships in 1999. PARTICIPANTS: 64 athletes (32 females and 32 males) who won elimination-round matches (out of 563 competitors), aged 15 to 38 years. MEASURES: frequency, mechanism of head blows, characteristics of situations leading up to and following head blows, frequency of multiple impacts. RESULTS: A total of 35 incidents of head blow occurred (365 blows per 1,000 athlete exposures). All of these head blows were associated with a direct head or face contact and frequently involved: a closed sparring stance, shorter athletes, axe or roundhouse type kicks, attacker's offensive kick, and head-blow-receiver's offensive action with absence of a blocking skill. CONCLUSIONS: To prevent possible brain injury resulting from direct head blows, updated safety education, a complete understanding of concussion for athletes, coaches, and referees, and a rule change in competition Taekwondo are recommended.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".