The Hammer and the Nail: Biomechanics of Striking and Struck Canadian University Football Players
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study sought to evaluate head accelerations in both players involved in a football collision. Players on two opposing Canadian university teams were equipped with helmet mounted sensors during one game per season, for two consecutive seasons. A total of 276 collisions between 58 instrumented players were identified via video and cross-referenced with sensor timestamps. Player involvement (striking and struck), impact type (block or tackle), head impact location (front, back, left and right), and play type were recorded from video footage. While struck players did not experience significantly different linear or rotational accelerations between any play types, striking players had the highest linear and rotational head accelerations during kickoff plays (p ≤ .03). Striking players also experienced greater linear and rotational head accelerations than struck players during kickoff plays (p = .001). However, struck players experienced greater linear and rotational accelerations than striking players during kick return plays (p ≤ .008). Other studies have established that the more severe the head impact, the greater risk for injury to the brain. This paper's results highlight that kickoff play rule changes, as implemented in American college football, would decrease head impact exposure of Canadian university football athletes and make the game safer.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".