Data_Sheet_1_Canadian High School Rugby Coaches Readiness for an Injury Prevention Strategy Implementation: Evaluating a Train-the-Coach Workshop.docx
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>Background: Canadian rugby coach injury prevention beliefs and attitudes have not been studied, yet are key to informing injury prevention strategy implementation. Despite neuromuscular training (NMT) warm-up success in reducing injury, adoption of these programs is variable. Therefore, objectives of this study included (1) describing Canadian youth rugby coach injury prevention beliefs and attitudes and current warm-up practices and (2) evaluating intention to use a rugby-specific NMT warm-up.</p><p>Methods: High school rugby coaches completed a questionnaire before and after a rugby-specific NMT warm-up workshop. The pre-workshop questionnaire captured demographics, current warm-up practice, and NMT warm-up knowledge and use. Both questionnaires captured injury prevention beliefs, attitudes and behavioral intention.</p><p>Results: Forty-eight coaches participated in the workshops. Pre-workshop, 27% of coaches were aware of NMT warm-ups. Coaches primarily included aerobic and stretching components, while balance components were not common in their warm-ups over the past year. Additionally, 92% of coaches agreed to some extent they would “complete a rugby-specific warm-up program prior to every game and training session this season.” Post-workshop, 86% of coaches agreed to some extent that they would use the program in every rugby session. No differences were observed between pre- and post-workshop intention to implement the warm-up (p = 0.10).</p><p>Interpretation: This is the first study to examine current Canadian youth rugby coach warm-up practices and intention to use NMT warm-ups. Canadian rugby coach intention to use a rugby-specific NMT warm-up is high, providing ample opportunity to investigate the efficacy of a NMT warm-up in youth rugby.</p>
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.277 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".