Concussion Knowledge and Communication Behaviors of Collegiate Wrestling Coaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".