Mapping the gap: A study on the confidence in knowledge and reporting of relative energy deficiency in sport (REDs) in Canadian University cross-country coaches and athletes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/Objective To assess athletes’ and coaches’ confidence in knowledge and recognition of Relative Energy Deficiency in Sport (REDs) before and after an education session at the Canadian University Sports (U SPORTS) National Cross-Country Championships (UXC). Methods We hosted an education session and panel discussion surrounding causes and risk factors, health and performance outcomes, prevention, as well as personal experiences the day before UXC. A cross-sectional in-person survey (39 pre- and 29 post-session questions) was implemented around the session. Sixty-eight athletes (85% ages 19–24y, 73.5% women) and 20 coaches (30% > 50y, 35% women) completed the survey. Results Pre-panel, 80% of coaches and 59% of athletes were able to correctly identify the underlying cause of REDs (low energy availability). However, only 50% of coaches and 13% of athletes were completely confident in their answers. The most common correctly identified symptoms were fatigue (coaches = 40%, athletes = 53%) and amenorrhoea (coaches = 30%, athletes = 57%). However, only 20% of coaches and 7% of athletes were completely confident in their answers. After the panel, confidence levels of coaches in identifying signs/symptoms did not change (p = 0.52; complete confidence = 20%), but significantly improved in athletes (p < 0.001; complete confidence = 32%). Low libido was a commonly identified learned symptom. Conclusion An education session and panel discussion surrounding REDs significantly increased the confidence in REDs knowledge among UXC athletes, but not among coaches. Further exploration of REDs knowledge dissemination strategies, that should be different for athletes versus coaches, is needed to improve awareness of REDs.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".