MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412683722 · doi:10.1177/17543371251359714

Stiffness of the glass shielding in ice hockey

2025· article· en· W4412683722 on OpenAlexaff
Omid Vakili, J. Maxwell Donelan, T. Blaine Hoshizaki, Stephen N. Robinovitch

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part P Journal of Sports Engineering and Technology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicWinter Sports Injuries and Performance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIce hockeyElectromagnetic shieldingMaterials scienceGeologyComposite materialMedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Concussions are common in ice hockey and often result from the head impacting the glass shielding. Risk for concussion during head-to-shielding impacts depends on the stiffness of the shielding. The cantilever design of the shielding likely causes the stiffness of the shielding and the magnitude of head impacts to vary depending on the proximity of the impact to the cap rail and the post connecting adjacent shielding panels. Understanding how shielding stiffness varies with proximity to the cap rail and post is important to designing safer hockey rinks. In this project, a portable test device was used to measure shielding stiffness. The results showed that shielding stiffness was associated significantly with height from the cap rail ( p = 0.0006) and location on the ice ( p = 0.0473), but not with horizontal distance from the post ( p = 0.82). Stiffness at a height of 20 cm above the cap rail was 2.8-fold greater than at 63 cm and 1.8-fold greater than at 44 cm. Stiffness in the corner was 1.8-fold greater than at the side boards. These findings indicate that there is considerable regional variation in shielding stiffness and support the need for standardised methods for assessing and regulating shielding stiffness in ice hockey.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.568
Threshold uncertainty score0.287

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.004
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.206 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part P Journal of Sports Engineering and TechnologySame topicWinter Sports Injuries and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207