An Update on the Six Recommendations from the 2012 IADMS Standard Measures Initiative: Assessing and Reporting Dancer Capacities, Risk Factors, and Injuries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In 2012, the Standard Measures Consensus Initiative (SMCI) of the International Association for Dance Medicine and Science (IADMS) presented 6 recommendations regarding dance injury surveillance, definitions of injury and exposure, dance-specific screening, risk reduction strategies, and collaborative data management. The aim was to standardize risk factor measurement and injury reporting by researchers in dance medicine and science. Since then, numerous reports on the recording and reporting of injury data in sport and performing arts have been published. METHODS: IADMS commissioned SMCI to update the 2012 recommendations, a process that involved 3 stages: (1) current field experts were invited to join SMCI, (2) SMCI members reviewed recent and relevant sport and performing arts literature, then drafted, discussed, and revised section updates, (3) IADMS invited individuals representing diverse backgrounds in the IADMS community to critically review drafted updates. The final update serves as a bridge from the 6 recommendations in the 2012 report to the current state of evidence. RESULTS: We continue to encourage use of dance injury surveillance systems and support that surveillance protocols be fit-for-purpose, and that failure to use clear and consistent injury definitions perpetuates a lack of rigor in dance injury research. Based on new evidence, we recommend that some aspects of injury surveillance be self-reported, that the choice of dance exposure measures be dependent on the research question, contextual factors, and type of injury/health problem(s) of interest, and that studies using dance-specific screening articulate specific objectives, validity, and reliability of each protocol. CONCLUSIONS: Future studies should focus on the development, implementation, and evaluation of strategies to minimize injury risk to improve consistency and rigor in data collection and research reporting on the health and wellness of dancer populations, thus facilitating a future dance injury consensus statement similar to recent statements published for sports and circus arts.
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 | 0.170 | 0.355 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.027 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.010 |
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".