Lesson Learned when Researching the Lived Experiences of Young Female Skiers with Knee Injuries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anterior Cruciate Ligament (ACL) injury occurs frequently in the sport of alpine ski racing and research in the mid 90's suggested that female skiers were three times more likely to have an ACL disruption than male counterparts. Interestingly career length was not reported as being reduced because of ACL injury but in fact lengthened. As an undergraduate student pursuing physical therapy and a former ski racer who had knee injuries, I undertook a summer research position that explored the lived experiences of ACL injured racers. PURPOSE: To understand how sustaining an ACL injury was meaningful to the ski racer and their return to sport. METHODS: This study used qualitative research methods; specifically hermeneutic phenomenology and potential participants were contacted through a social networking website. Three female alpine skiers between the ages of 23 and 24 who had sustained an ACL injury and had returned to skiing consented to be interviewed. Interviews were semi-structured, audio-recorded, transcribed and themes were identified using a specialized software program. RESULTS: Injury frustration was high and therefore a strong preference to see surgery as a solution was commonplace. Participants stated they were motivated to recover and described their interactions with doctors and therapists as significant components of their recovery. The most interesting aspect was the variability in injury experience despite all being female, alpine racers and injured during skiing. CONCLUSION: The in-depth qualitative interviews enabled the skiers to describe and define their own lived experiences of ACL injury, treatment, and return to sport. The female ski racers who participated in this study expressed a variety of views and beliefs about their experiences. However, saturation may not have been reached by the end of data collection and therefore it is not known if more themes would have emerged. Remaining unbiased from my own personal experiences as an injured skier proved to be the most difficult part of conducting this research. Yet learning to do this will help me be a better listener as a health care practitioner.
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 | 0.011 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".