222 Do physical contacts and head contacts differ in female ice hockey and ringette? A video-analysis study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background 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. Objective To compare incidence rates (IR) of in-game PCs, head contacts (HC), and suspected injuries in female varsity ice hockey and ringette. Design Cross-sectional. Setting Canadian ice hockey arenas. Participants Female university ringette and ice hockey tournament/playoff games in the 2018–2019/2019–2020 seasons. Assessment of Risk Factors 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). Main Outcome Measurements 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. Results 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). Conclusions 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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".