A comparison of frequency and magnitude of head impacts between Pee Wee And Bantam youth ice hockey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this research was to compare the frequency and magnitude of head impact events between Pee Wee and Bantam ice hockey players. Videos of Pee Wee and Bantam boys' ice hockey were analysed to determine the frequency and type of head impact events. The head impact events were then reconstructed in the laboratory using physical and finite element models to determine the magnitude of strain in the brain tissues. The results showed that Pee Wee boys experienced more head impacts from elbows and boards, while Bantam players had more head impacts to the glass. Pee Wee and Bantam players experienced similar frequency and magnitudes of very low, low, and medium and above (med+) levels of strain to the brain. This research suggests to ice hockey leagues and coaches that to reduce the incidence of these levels of brain trauma, consideration must be given to either reducing the level of contact along the boards or the removal of body checking. In addition, companies who innovate in ice hockey should develop protective devices and equipment strategies that aim to reduce the risk of head injury from shoulder and glass impacts for Bantam players.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".