Two Sports, Two Systems, One Goal: A Comparative Study of Concussion Policies and Practices of the Australian Football League and Hockey Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Concussion in sport is today regarded as both a public health issue and high profile injury concern in many contact and collision sports. This paper undertakes a comparative review of the current policies and practices of two high profile national sporting organisations of such sports-the Australian Football League (AFL) and Hockey Canada (HC)-in governing the issue as a regulatory concern. By examining the policies and practices of the AFL and HC, this study aims to identify common themes, divergent practices, and nuanced sport-specific approaches to develop understandings on the regulation and governance of this high profile sports injury. The paper aims to contribute to understanding concussion as a regulatory concern, while at the same time recognising the heterogeneity of sport and reinforcing nuanced understandings that align to specific social and cultural settings. We make recommendations based on regulatory and cultural legitimacy. The paper concludes that these NSOs are institutional actors with historical and cultural roots who assert regulatory legitimacy by steering and influencing behaviour and directing the regulatory agenda to manage and mitigate the harm associated with concussion.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".