What is the knowledge of Newfoundland and Labrador Coaches’ regarding recognition of and response towards sports related concussive injury in the adolescent?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To examine coaches’ knowledge, recognition of, and response to, concussion in the adolescent athlete population.Methods: Using a non-experimental correlational design, adult coaches (N = 120) responsible in the coaching of adolescent junior high and high school athletes were recruited from sports associations and schools in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador (NL). A 28 item questionnaire called Coaches’ Knowledge of Sports Related Concussive Injury in the Adolescent Athlete Survey was provided online.Results: Majority of participants were knowledgeable of what is a concussion, its causes, and what visual clues observed that indicate a possible concussion in a player. In relation to the Age of coach category, only the 55+ age group responded correctly to what is an example of sport specific activity with body contact. Years of coaching and return-to-play knowledge after a concussion showed incorrect responses for both the step wise approach and the 20-30 minute player participation with no contact. Having attended an education concussion session or not showed no difference on return-to-play knowledge in the step wise approach progression as the majority responded incorrectly with 71.4% (attended an education session) versus 91.7% of participants (no attendance on concussion education), respectively.Conclusions: Benefits gained through this research study will serve to evaluate coaches’ knowledge and improve standardized concussion knowledge. Such preparation can assist in better recognizing and effectively managing a sports related concussion (SRC) and the potential to facilitate sport policy changes. Actions by coaches can impact preventative education, encourage safe behaviors and the reporting of concussive symptoms by the adolescent, therefore reducing burden on overall long term negative health outcomes.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".