MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Quantifying the Effects of American Football Shoulder Pads on Reach Distance and Player Perception of Comfort and Fit

2023· article· en· W4385432369 on OpenAlexaff
Claudia M. Town, Ron Jadischke Xenith, David Andrews

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Kinesiology and Sports Science · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSports injuries and prevention
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFootballPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The majority of sports equipment research to date has focused on their protective capabilities, and not on how they impact player performance and comfort while using them. Objective: The purpose of this study was to quantify the reach distances of players wearing different football shoulder pads and determine player perceptions of shoulder pad comfort and fit. Methods: Football players (n=10) underwent a standardized reach distance protocol comprised of three trials of repeated shoulder flexion, extension, abduction, horizontal flexion, and horizontal extension in each of the three shoulder pad conditions (no shoulder pad, standard shoulder pad, prototype shoulder pad). Player perceptions of shoulder pad comfort and fit, breathability, restrictiveness, and weight were also evaluated using a questionnaire. Reach distances were recorded using five GoPro Hero 9 cameras and analyzed using ProAnalyst®3D motion tracking software. Results: Reach distances were significantly affected during several movements, but especially in the vertical direction, for flexion and abduction, with mean differences between the prototype pad and standard pad of 10.3 cm and 23.1 cm, respectively (P = 0.007 and P = 0.003). Differences in reach distance were greater for the standard shoulder pad than the prototype shoulder pad on average. This indicates that the prototype shoulder pad was less restrictive, which aligned with what players reported. There was significantly more discomfort reported in the neck collar and armpit regions for the standard shoulder pad compared to the prototype pad. Participants also found the prototype shoulder pad to be lighter, and more breathable (P0.05). Conclusion: These results provide manufacturers with valuable insights from a design standpoint, and offer athletes who are looking for superior sport protective equipment key evidence regarding shoulder pad performance, fit, and comfort.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.332 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Kinesiology and Sports ScienceSame topicSports injuries and preventionFrench-language works237,207