MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2616243683

Varsity athletes' concussion beliefs: A driving factor to prevention?

2014· article· en· W2616243683 on OpenAlexaff
Michael P Jorgensen, Fergal O’Hagan, Hugo Lehmann

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsTrent University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConcussionAthletesPsychologyContext (archaeology)Clinical psychologyAnxietyInjury preventionPoison controlMedicinePhysical therapyPsychiatryMedical emergency
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Concussion prevention programs aim to reduce concussion incidence by increasing knowledge and awareness about the injury, though reductions in the context of sport have been limited. Many of these efforts have been directed towards influencing athlete beliefs of concussion injury to encourage the use of protective behaviours. Little is know about athletes' beliefs about concussion and how those beliefs might affect protective behaviours. The Common Sense Model (CSM) of Illness Representation suggests that stimuli, such as education or experiences regarding an injury, influence an individual’s danger and fear representations of the injury. These perceptions relate to the likelihood the individual enacting coping or protective behaviours. This cross-sectional survey of 100 varsity athletes (55% male; mean age 20; 61% involved in contact sports; 63% history of concussion) used the CSM to examine beliefs (control, timeline, consequence, emotions) about concussion injury along with competitive drive and how they influence attitudes and intentions towards protective behaviours. Women expressed greater fear and anxiety towards concussion than men. Athletes educated about concussion believed that concussion injury could have long-term effects versus non-educated athletes. Athletes’ belief about the cyclical nature of concussion, the social consequences of the injury, and the efficacy of medical treatment were positively related to protective behaviour attitudes accounting for 10 percent of the variance. None were unique predictors of attitudes. Only emotional associations uniquely predicted protective behaviour intention accounting for 13 percent of the variance. Attitudes accounted for 10 percent of the variance in behavioural intention. Emotion plays a significant role in protective behaviour intention but cognitive representations play a limited role. Research and practice should consider factors other than danger beliefs in prevention efforts.

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)0.005
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 score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.306 · 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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTraumatic Brain Injury Research→French-language works237,207→