Concussion in sport – What do we know, and what’s next?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents shortened versions of talks given at a symposium about concussion in sport. The piece is designed, in similar lines as the event, to help communicate knowledge and ideas between academics in multiple disciplines, communities of practice and to develop public and patient involvement. The seven short essays are presented in the style of a conference proceedings paper. Each author presents their own focus, with one paper drawing on lived experiences and activism, three taking a biomedical approach and the remaining three drawing on social scientific analysis and literature. We have developed this paper to provide readers with a concise, but not complete, understanding of different topics related to concussion and brain injuries in sport. The limitations of space means that the authors have had to reduce the complexity of some ongoing debates on the topic. The final section is based on the comments and discussions that happened during and after the symposium. It offers some important takeaways and encourages scholars working in this area to prioritize multi-disciplinary research, and highlights the importance of centering the experiences and lives of those people affected by concussions and neurological disorders in the development and delivery of future work. It is hoped that communicating ideas in this way will encourage such ways of thinking as a means of tackling the complex set of problems that face those involved in sports where repeated forceful impact is a normalized 'part of the game'.
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 | 0.011 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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".