746 The incidence of behaviours associated with body checking experience among youth ice hockey players
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Participation and injury rates in youth ice hockey are high. Results of recent studies show that for 11 and 12 years old players the risk of injury is significantly higher in leagues where body checking (BC) is permitted compared to leagues where it is not. The objective of this research was to determine whether the incidence and types of body contact differ for 13 and 14 years old players in leagues where BC commenced at age 11 (Calgary) versus 13 and 14 years old players in leagues where BC was delayed until age 13 (Québec City). Methods A cohort study was conducted in Québec City and Calgary. Sixteen games for Calgary and fifteen for Québec City were randomly selected and retrospectively analysed. Games were videotaped and analysed with a validated observation system allowing quantification of the intensity of physical contacts (PC). Five levels of intensity were coded. Level 1 represents the lowest intensity, and level 5 the highest. Different types of PC such as slashing and hooking were also observed. Multivariate Poisson’s regression analyses were performed to compare games between the two cohorts. The results provided a body contact incidence rate per team game. Rates were adjusted for the game period, rink zone, and score difference. Results A total of 5,610 incidences of body contact with the trunk and 3,429 other types of body contact were observed. Very light intensity (Level 1) trunk contact was more frequent in Québec City (adjusted incidence RR [ARR]: 1.71; 95% CI: 1.28–2.29). Hooking (ARR: 2.18; 95% CI: 1.42–3.32) and slashing (ARR: 3.35; 95% CI: 1.31–8.58) were more frequent in Calgary. Body contacts were made more often by defensive players (ARR: 1.28; 95% CI: 1.03–1.58) and on puck carriers (ARR: 1.47; 95% CI: 1.02–2.12) in Calgary. Conclusions Results suggest that players’ behaviours differ between players in leagues in which BC was permitted at age 11 compared to leagues in which BC was delayed until age 13.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".