MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2500961834 · doi:10.1080/10410236.2016.1196417

Concussion Knowledge and Communication Behaviors of Collegiate Wrestling Coaches

2016· article· en· W2500961834 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Communication · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsChildren’s Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConcussionCoachingAthletesPsychologyAutonomyIntervention (counseling)Applied psychologyOccupational safety and healthInjury preventionPoison controlMedicinePhysical therapyMedical emergencyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sport coaches can play an important role in shaping a team's approach to concussion safety through their communication with team members. However, across all sports, there is limited knowledge about factors that make coaches more or less likely to engage in safety-supportive communication. The objectives of this study were to assess the concussion-related knowledge and attitudes of wrestling coaches, as well as the extent to which they engage in autonomy-supportive coaching practices, and to determine how these factors are related to communication with athletes in support of concussion safety. Data were collected through an online survey of head coaches of National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) wrestling teams (n = 89, 40.5% response rate). On average, coaches answered five out of a possible nine knowledge questions correctly and were significantly more likely to think it was acceptable for an athlete to continue playing after sustaining a concussion during a national qualifying competition as compared to during an early-season competition. Engaging in autonomy-supportive coaching behaviors was the coach factor explaining the largest percentage of variability in communication. Findings suggest that while knowledge deficits and attitudes about the acceptability of continued play while symptomatic during more consequential competitive matches should be addressed in educational programming for collegiate wrestling coaches, these changes alone may not be a sufficient for adequately increasing concussion safety communication. Targeting more distal factors such as autonomy-supportive approaches to coaching may hold promise for intervention design and should be explored in future prospective research.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.742
Threshold uncertainty score0.286

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.137
GPT teacher head0.435
Teacher spread0.298 · 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