MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4206036124 · doi:10.1123/jab.2020-0228

Career Head Impact Exposure Profile of Canadian University Football Players

2022· article· en· W4206036124 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jeffrey S. Brooks, Kody R. Campbell, Wayne Allison, Andrew M. Johnson, James P. Dickey

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Biomechanics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOffensiveSeniorityFootballAmerican footballHead (geology)Football playersPsychologyApplied psychologyEngineeringGeographyOperations research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study quantified head impact exposures for Canadian university football players over their varsity career. Participants included 63 players from one team that participated in a minimum of 3 seasons between 2013 and 2018. A total of 127,192 head impacts were recorded from 258 practices and 65 games. The mean (SD) number of career impacts across all positions was 2023.1 (1296.4), with an average of 37.1 (20.3) impacts per game and 7.4 (4.4) impacts per practice. The number of head impacts that players experienced during their careers increased proportionally to the number of athletic exposures (P < .001, r = .57). Linebackers and defensive and offensive linemen experienced significantly more head impacts than defensive backs, quarterbacks, and wide receivers (P ≤ .014). Seniority did not significantly affect the number of head impacts a player experienced. Mean linear acceleration increased with years of seniority within defensive backs and offensive linemen (P ≤ .01). Rotational velocity increased with years of seniority within defensive backs, defensive and offensive linemen, running backs, and wide receivers (P < .05). These data characterize career metrics of head impact exposure for Canadian university football players and provide insights to reduce head impacts through rule modifications and contact regulations.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.496
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied BiomechanicsSame topicTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207