MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2341207310 · doi:10.14288/1.0077389

Saskatchewan junior "A" hockey and withdrawal rates from high school

2011· article· en· W2341207310 on OpenAlexaffabout
Michael Thomas McDowell

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSports injuries and prevention
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The thesis studied the withdrawal rates from high school of Junior "A" hockey players as compared to the general population in the Province of Saskatchewan. As a post hoc consideration, two additional aspects were examined: a) The effect the new N.H.L.-C.A.H.A. Agreement has had on the withdrawal rates of the Junior "A" student hockey players. b) The graduating age of Junior "A" hockey players. The selected sample size numbered 273 Junior "A" hockey players. These players were selected from the Saskatchewan Junior Hockey League registry for the six years of 1959-61 and 1962-66. An additional 57 names were selected from the Saskatchewan Junior Hockey League registry from the 1967-68 season, in order to study the effect of the new N.H.L.-C.A.H.A. Agreement signed in May, 1967. All players selected were between the ages of sixteen and nineteen years. The names of these Junior "A" hockey players, the 273 of the selected sample and the 57 from the 1967-68 registry, 330 in total, were researched in the Provincial Department of Education files in Regina, Saskatchewan. The high school standing of each player was recorded. The high school standing of those players from whom the Department had no record - 138 players - was researched by writing directly to the high schools in the cities where the players had competed. Once the school records of every player had been researched, the players were divided into four age groups of sixteen, seventeen, eighteen and nineteen year olds. A test of significance for proportions was applied to determine if a difference existed between the withdrawal proportions of the selected sample and of the general population for each age group. Graphs were prepared to illustrate the three comparative aspects of the study: 1) the withdrawal rates of the selected sample and of the general population for the four age groups; 2) the withdrawal rates of the selected sample and of the players selected from the 1967-68 registry; and 3) the average age at graduation for the selected sample and for the general population. Within the limitations of the study, the following conclusions appear warranted: 1. There were statistically significant differences in the withdrawal proportions between the hockey playing student samples and the general population for three of the four age classifications in the direction of the hockey playing group. a) The sixteen and seventeen year old samples had a significantly higher school withdrawal proportion than that of the general population at the .05 and .01 levels of confidence respectively; but these differences could be subject to question due to the limited sample size. b) The eighteen year old sample had a significantly higher school withdrawal proportion than that of the general population at the .01 level of confidence. c) The nineteen year old sample withdrawal proportion was not significantly different from that of the general population. 2. The hockey playing student appears to be retarded in his normal progress through the educational system to the extent that his graduating age was on the average, approximately 1.67 years older than the normal graduating age of the general population. 3. There appears to be no decrease in the withdrawal rates of student hockey players as a result of the new N.H.L.-C.A.H.A. Agreement of May, 1967.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.323
Threshold uncertainty score0.650

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.178
Teacher spread0.171 · 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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)→Same topicSports injuries and prevention→French-language works237,207→