The incidence of behaviours associated with body checking among young ice hockey players
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context Ice hockey has one of the highest sport participation and injury rates in youth in Canada. Body checking (BC) is the predominant mechanism of injury in leagues where it is permitted. Objective To determine if the incidence of physical contacts differs for Pee Wee (PW) players (11–12 years) in leagues where BC is permitted (Alberta) versus players in leagues where BC is not permitted (Quebec). Design Cohort study. Setting Arenas in Alberta and Quebec, 2007–2008 season. Participants PW teams in the top 10% of divisions of play in Quebec (n=10) and Calgary (n=10). Observation technique 20 games were analysed. Games were video-recorded and analysed by two trained observers. Main outcome measures The intensity of the physical contacts was observed with a validated observation system. Five levels of intensity were coded. Level 1 represents the lowest intensity of physical contacts. Rate ratios (RR) adjusted for team clusters based on multivariate Poisson regression was used to compare games played in Calgary and Quebec. Results 2418 physical contacts were observed. No difference was observed in the rate of physical contacts in games played in both provinces. High intensity physical contacts (levels 4 and 5 combined) were more frequent in Calgary (RR=6.57; 95% IC 3.09 to 13.93). Conclusions The results suggest that the greater rate of injury observed in PW leagues where BC is permitted would not be caused by the frequency of the physical contacts but by their intensity.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".