MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3216880873 · doi:10.1136/bjsports-2021-ioc.205

222 Do physical contacts and head contacts differ in female ice hockey and ringette? A video-analysis study

2021· article· en· W3216880873 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenuePoster presentations · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsHotchkiss Brain InstituteAlberta Children's HospitalAlberta Bone and Joint Health InstituteUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIce hockeyPoisson regressionConfidence intervalTeam sportConcussionMedicinePhysical therapyDemographyPoison controlPhysical medicine and rehabilitationInjury preventionMedical emergencyInternal medicinePopulationAthletes

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<h3>Background</h3> A Canadian study reports the highest concussion rates in ringette and ice hockey, compared to other female team sports. Although high-intensity physical contacts (PC) are prohibited in both sports, player-to-player PCs accounted for 58–64% of injuries. <h3>Objective</h3> To compare incidence rates (IR) of in-game PCs, head contacts (HC), and suspected injuries in female varsity ice hockey and ringette. <h3>Design</h3> Cross-sectional. <h3>Setting</h3> Canadian ice hockey arenas. <h3>Participants</h3> Female university ringette and ice hockey tournament/playoff games in the 2018–2019/2019–2020 seasons. <h3>Assessment of Risk Factors</h3> Game video-recordings were analyzed using Dartfish video-analysis software. Validated criteria were used to assess PC intensity (level 1–5), PC type (e.g., trunk contact, push), HC type (i.e., HC1=direct player-to-player, HC2=indirect environmental), and suspected injury (i.e., concussion, musculoskeletal). <h3>Main Outcome Measurements</h3> Univariate Poisson regression analyses (adjusted for cluster by team, offset by game-minutes) was used to estimate PC and HC IRs and incidence rate ratios (IRRs, 95% confidence intervals) comparing sports. <h3>Results</h3> Analyses of 36 team-games (n=18 ringette, n=18 ice hockey) revealed that ringette had a 19% lower rate of PCs (IR=310.38 contacts/100 team-minutes, 95%CI;285.40–337.54) than ice hockey (IR=382.48 contacts/100 team-minutes, 95%CI;356.80–410.00) (IRR=0.81, 95%CI;0.73–0.90). Ringette had a 68% higher rate (IRR=1.68, 95%CI:1.22–2.31) of total HCs (IR=17.92 contacts/100 team-minutes, 95%CI;14.71–21.83) compared to ice hockey (IR=10.67 contacts/100 team-minutes, 95%CI;8.28–13.75). Ringette had a 3-fold higher rate (IRR=3.11, 95%CI;1.13–8.60) of suspected injury (IR=1.46 HCs/100 team-minutes, 95%CI;0.72–2.93) compared to ice hockey (IR=0.47 HCs/100 team-minutes, 95%CI;0.22–1.00). <h3>Conclusions</h3> This study demonstrated a lower rate of PCs in ringette than female ice hockey. However, ringette had a significantly higher rate of HCs and suspected injuries than ice hockey. These findings can inform future research targeting prevention strategies in both sports.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.578

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.316 · 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