Match official experiences with the Blue Card protocol in amateur rugby: implementing Rowan’s Law for concussion management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Blue Card protocol was introduced to domestic amateur rugby competitions to bring Rugby Canada into compliance with provincial concussion legislation. The Blue Card protocol formalises how match officials can remove an athlete with a suspected concussion from play and prevents athletes from returning to sport without medical clearance. This exploratory study examined the experiences of Canadian rugby match officials with the novel Blue Card process. Semi-structured interviews conducted with six Canadian rugby match officials were subjected to Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis. Findings revealed interpersonal (e.g. stakeholder collaboration and peer support) and intrapersonal (e.g. concerns about personal liability and comfort with the administration of the Blue Card) factors related to the successful implementation of concussion management protocols. Match officials distinguished actions from members of the rugby community as either supporting (e.g. information sharing) or actively resisting (e.g. questioning match official decisions regarding the Blue Card) efforts to implement the Blue Card protocol. Those who had personal experience removing an athlete from play due to a suspected concussion or who administered a Blue Card during the 2019 season reported feeling more comfortable with the process than less experienced peers. However, in this early policy implementation phase, 50% of participants expressed concerns about their personal liability associated with the Blue Card process. Implications for the design and implementation of sport-related concussion research and policy at the amateur level are discussed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".