MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2886490436 · doi:10.1080/24733938.2018.1506591

The number of purposeful headers female youth soccer players experience during games depends on player age but not player position

2018· article· en· W2886490436 on OpenAlexaff
Alexandra Harriss, Andrew M. Johnson, David M. Walton, James P. Dickey

Bibliographic record

VenueScience and Medicine in Football · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSports injuries and prevention
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeading (navigation)PsychologyApplied psychologyComputer scienceGeographyGeodesy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: The aim of this study was to describe the frequency and characteristics of purposeful soccer heading in youth players based on age, position, and head impact location.Methods: Game video was recorded for three female youth teams [under-13 (U13), under-14 (U14), and under-15 (U15)] for an entire season. Purposeful headers were categorized for these three teams and their opposition.Results: The median number of headers experienced during games was one, and the minimum number of headers was zero. The maximum number of headers performed during a game by a U13 player was eight, and nine for U14 and U15 players. There were statistically significant differences in the number of headers performed in the different age groups (p < 0.05), but no significant differences between player position (p > 0.05). There was no significant association between head impact location and game scenario (p > 0.05).Conclusions: Our study shows that youth players frequently head the ball during games. This information may guide data-driven approaches regarding heading restrictions in youth soccer.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.311 · 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

Citations28
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScience and Medicine in FootballSame topicSports injuries and preventionFrench-language works237,207