Exploring Sex-Based Differences in Concussion Knowledge, Attitudes and Resources in Young First Nations Hockey Players: A Cross-Sectional Survey from Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective: Indigenous youth are vulnerable to concussion when playing hockey. A clear characterisation of sex differences among Indigenous youth could assist in tailoring future education programmes for prevention and management of concussion. The purpose of this study was to compare and contrast concussion knowledge, attitudes and resources in First Nations girls and boys playing recreational hockey. Method: The cross-sectional survey was conducted in partnership with a First Nations’ chief, other Indigenous community leaders and a tertiary care head injury clinic. In Canada, researchers engaging with Indigenous peoples are expected to adhere to principles of Ownership, Control, Access and Possessions. The study included Indigenous boys and girls between the ages of 10 and 18 years of age. Results: More girls attending the hockey tournament participated in the study as compared to boys (girlsn= 46, boysn= 29). More girls reported they had never experienced a concussion (73.9%), as compared to boys (58.6%) self-reports. Less than half of all study participants were able to identify some signs and symptoms of concussion such as vomiting/nausea, memory problems, fatigue and blurred vision and recognition of several concussion symptoms varied by sex. Conclusions: We created a unique partnership between Indigenous leaders and tertiary care clinic staff. Among Indigenous youth reasons for not reporting concussion symptoms to the coach varied by sex (although not reaching statistical significance), suggesting concussion education warrants tailoring for girls and boys.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".