MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2586393661 · doi:10.1080/2159676x.2017.1292304

A season-long case study examining alcohol use and misuse in Canadian junior hockey

2017· article· en· W2586393661 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Jonathan Roy, Martin Camiré

Bibliographic record

VenueQualitative Research in Sport Exercise and Health · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicYouth Development and Social Support
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsIce hockeyPsychologyMedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Canada, hockey is part of the country’s history, culture and identity, but its practice is also linked with high rates of alcohol consumption. The purpose of the present study was to conduct a season-long case study examining alcohol use and misuse in Canadian junior hockey. Data were collected throughout the 2015–2016 season through extensive observations of a junior-level team as well as semi-structured interviews conducted at three time points (i.e. beginning, middle and end of season) with five team members (i.e. two coaches and three players). The findings showed how for the participants, socialisation to alcohol within hockey began at a very young age and the physical environment (e.g. the sale of alcohol in arenas) facilitated consumption. The findings also revealed how alcohol consumption was inherently planned within hockey-related events (e.g. out-of-town tournament), sometimes superseding hockey itself. Throughout the season, the team context represented a prime setting where players were prone to exhibit childish, health compromising and illegal behaviours while under the influence of alcohol.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.313

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0180.005
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.581
GPT teacher head0.612
Teacher spread0.031 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations12
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQualitative Research in Sport Exercise and HealthSame topicYouth Development and Social SupportFrench-language works237,207