Prevalence of Medical Problems Associated with Playing the Great Highland Bagpipe: Survey Results and Comparisons to Other Musicians
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The number of players of the Great Highland bagpipes (GHB) involved in competition worldwide is unknown. Despite the rising popularity of piping and pipe band organizations, minimal information is available regarding the range of medical problems encountered in pipers. The purpose of this study was to describe the neuromusculoskeletal problems experienced by bagpipers. A survey adapted from the National Flute Association Medical Problems Survey was used and distributed to pipers in the United States and Canada ( n = 123). The demographic profile showed that 31% of the respondents have played the GHB for 3 to 8 yrs and 29% have played 20+ yrs. On average, pipers practiced 5 to 15 hrs/wk, and the most common sites of musculoskeletal complaint were the left arm and lower back (32% each). Loss of finger coordination (21%) and neck pain or stiffness (19%) were the next most common complaints. Pain and stiffness were also reported in the left (17%) and right (15%) hand and the left shoulder (11%). The survey results support the concerns expressed by pipers regarding problems resulting from playing the GHB and find these issues correlate with those described in other musician populations. Having determined the primary areas of concern, identifying possible biomechanical and ergonomic issues, as well as instrument-specific strengthening techniques may decrease rates of neuromusculoskeletal problems in the piping population.
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.
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 | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it