A Retrospective Study Investigating Injury Incidence and Factors Associated with Injury among Belly Dancers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Belly dance is an appreciably under researched dance form. As such, little is known of the injury prevalence and risk factors for injury among this dance population. Therefore, the primary objective of this study was to examine the most common injury sites and to identify potential factors associated with injury risk within the belly dance community of New Zealand over a 12-month retrospective period. Dancers who had practiced or performed belly dance during that time span were surveyed using an online or paper-based questionnaire. One hundred and nine injury questionnaires (all from female dancers) qualified for the final analysis. The participants had a median age of 44.3 years and danced a median of 3.0 hours per week. The injury rate was 37% (40 injuries in 109 dancers surveyed), the injury incidence proportion was 24.8% (27 dancers reporting at least one injury), and the per hour injury incidence rate was 1.69 per 1,000 dance hours. Of the two most recently sustained injuries reported, lower limb injuries were the most common, followed by trunk injuries. Age, total dance hours per week, and participation in a non-dance exercise regimen of any kind were associated with a decreased risk of injury; performing regularly was associated with an increased injury rate. It is concluded that an understanding of the incidence and sites of injuries may help create awareness that belly dance can be injurious, and subsequently lead to the development of future interventions.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".