MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7008439945

Characterization of the Biomechanical and Situational Aspects of High Magnitude Subconcussive Impacts in Canadian University Football

2021· dissertation· en· W7008439945 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueQSpace (Queen's University Library) · 2021
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFootballPoison controlInjury preventionClosing (real estate)CoachingHuman factors and ergonomicsOffensiveSuicide prevention
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Subconcussive impacts are asymptomatic head impacts that induce alterations in the brain after repetitive exposure. Understanding factors that lead to higher magnitude or frequency of subconcussive head impacts in Canadian football is crucial for the development of harm reduction and prevention strategies. Purpose: The objective of this study was to characterize high magnitude subconcussive impacts in Canadian football to identify injurious relationships between player and game-based characteristics, impact magnitude, and frequency. Methods: Eighty-one male university-level football players were equipped with helmet accelerometers to capture linear acceleration (LA), impact frequency, and helmet impact location. Impacts with LA ≥60g were included in the analysis. Video footage from 15 games over three seasons was analyzed to characterize aspects of play including play type, position, closing distance, player technique, tackling versus blocking, and impact type (helmet-to-helmet/body/ground) during these high magnitude impacts. Results: A total of 570 impacts were included in the analysis with a mean LA of 83.44 ± 23.60g. Impacts with a closing distance of ≥10 yards resulted in higher LA compared to <10 yards and occurred most frequently in run plays. Small skill players experienced significantly higher LA than linemen. Helmet-to-body impacts generated significantly higher LA compared to helmet-to-helmet, though helmet-to-helmet occurred more often. Impacts with poor technique had higher LA and occurred more frequently in tackling versus blocking impacts. Conclusion: The results of this work suggest that rules regarding offensive backfield running starts could be adjusted to decrease the risk of impact after a larger closing distance. Behavioral modifications and coaching approaches aimed at improving tackling technique could decrease exposure to high magnitude impacts at the level of the individual player.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.140
Threshold uncertainty score0.281

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQSpace (Queen's University Library)→Same topicTraumatic Brain Injury Research→French-language works237,207→