MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3135056043

An examination of the brain trauma in Novice and Midget ice hockey: Implications for helmet innovation

2019· article· en· W3135056043 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew Post, Clara Karton, Michael A. Robidoux, Michael D. Gilchrist, T. Blaine Hoshizaki

Bibliographic record

VenueCMBES Proceedings · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIce hockeyBody contactPrincipal (computer security)Head (geology)GeographyEngineeringPsychologyGeologyComputer securityComputer sciencePhysical medicine and rehabilitationPhysicsMedicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ice hockey helmets are currently not designed for youth players, but rather reduced in size to fit smaller heads. As a result they are not as effective for youth protection. In order to target youth specific helmet protection and innovation, there needs to be an understanding of what characteristics contribute to brain trauma in youth ice hockey. The purpose of this research was to compare the frequency and magnitude of head contact events that occur in Novice and Midget ice hockey age categories. 30 Novice and 30 Midget youth boys’ ice hockey games were analyzed to determine the frequency of event type, velocity of contact, and location of contact for head impacts. These events were then reconstructed in laboratory using physical and finite element modelling to determine the maximum principal strain of the events. The results identified that the Novice category helmet design should be focused on reducing impact from hard surfaces, while Midget focused on impacts from collisions with players and the glass.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.057
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.303 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCMBES ProceedingsSame topicTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207