Risk, Responsibility, and Prevention in Injury Management: Implications of Concussion (mis)education on Youth Athlete Knowledge Uptake
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Concerns over the short- and long-term health implications of concussions has led to a surge in concussion education materials, resources, and modalities to educate youth athletes as a first line of defense in injury prevention. In this paper, we argue that this over-emphasis on concussion education–and a reliance on static, sensationalized, and culturally disconnected messaging–fails to consider the sociocultural implications of concussion education and the subsequent uptake and impact of this information by/on youth athletes. To do so, we present research involving semi-structured interviews with youth athletes in Ontario, Canada ( N = 28; aged 13-18-years-old) focused on understanding experiences with concussion knowledge and education. Through our analysis, we highlight three important domains related to athletes’ experiences with concussion education concerning (1) sufficient education, (2) scare tactics in education efforts, and (3) equity, access, and responsibility. By problematizing education as an effective mode of injury prevention, we draw attention to a gap within current sport-related concussion literature concerning knowledge uptake, education, and behaviour with the social and cultural realities of concussion experiences.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it