MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4310766439 · doi:10.8291/zenodo.7373745

[NCAA-TV] North Carolina vs UCLA Women Soccer Final Live Free at 05 December 2022

2022· article· en· W4310766439 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff

Notice bibliographique

RevueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2022
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueSports, Gender, and Society
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésAeronauticsAdvertisingEngineeringBusiness

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Watch UCLA at North Carolina live Stream Women's College Soccer Free TV Channel\n\n\n\tUCLA at North Carolina live Stream\n\n\nHow to Watch UCLA at North Carolina: Stream Women's College Soccer Live, TV Channel\n\nThe No. 1 Tar Heels will host the No. 2 Bruins at Dorrance Field Sunday afternoon as both teams look to stay undefeated.\n\nThe UCLA Bruins will wrap up their North Carolina trip Sunday with a game against the No. 1-ranked University of North Carolina Tar Heels. The Bruins have had a strong start to the season and are currently undefeated with a record of 4-0. Most recently, UCLA played a tight game against No. 2 Duke that ended in a 2-1 victory for the Bruins. Jayden Perry scored the first goal for the Bruins on a penalty kick after Reilyn Turner was fouled in the box. Michelle Cooper scored for Duke to tied things up and break the Bruins' 308-minute shutout streak. Turner netted the game-winner for the Bruins early in the second half. \n\nHow to Watch Women's College Soccer, UCLA at North Carolina Today:\n\nMatch Date: Sept. 4, 2022\n\nMatch Time: 12:00 p.m. ET\n\nTV: ACC Network (National)\n\nLive Stream Women's College Soccer, UCLA at North Carolina on fuboTV: Start your free trial now!\n\nThe Tar Heels have also had a strong start to the season, but as the No. 1 team in the nation, that is to be expected. UNC is currently 5-0 on the season and will look to continue that win streak today. In the team's most recent outing, it took down Missouri in a 3-1 victory with goals from Avery Patterson, Tori Dellaperuta and Bella Sember. \n\nThe fourth-seed side flew into an early lead as they scored two runs in the first innings and led for the remainder of the match in front of a 2,500-strong crowd.\n\nAlthough they lost, Canada's silver medal meant that they had achieved the most podium finishes in the tournament's history.\n\nA tally of four gold, six silver, and four bronze medals took them ahead of New Zealand's total of 13, although the latter has the most titles with seven.\n\nEarlier on, five-time winners the United States claimed third place with a 2-0 victory over defending champions Argentina, to bag their first World Cup podium in 22 years.\n\n"We have done it all our tour, we've got on the board early," said coach Laing Harrow whose father coached the Australian team to their inaugural win at Saskatoon 2009.\n\n"I think that sixth inning was the key.\n\n"Canada scored in the fifth and we answered right back and that was critical for us.\n\n"It took the wind out of their sails.\n\n"I have to give credit.\n\n"Jack (Besgrove) threw a hell of a game.\n\n"It was a real battle.\n\nNot since 2006 have the Socceroos made the knockout stage while Belgium have never played a last-16 game at the World Cup, and with a ferocious backing in Qatar they will be under pressure to grab a vital win today.\n\nΤhe CORD-19 dataset released by the team of Semantic Scholar1 anddgΤhe curated data provided by the LitCovid hub2.gd\n\nThese data have been cleaned and integrated with data from COVID-19-TweetIDs and from other sources (e.g., PMC). The result was dataset of 500,314 unique articles along with relevant metadata (e.g., the underlying citation network). We utilized this dataset to produce, for each article, the values of the following impact measures:\n\nInfluence: Citation-based measure reflecting the total impact of an article. This is based on the PageRank3 network analysis method. In the context of citation networks, it estimates the importance of each article based on its centrality in the whole network. This measure was calculated using the PaperRanking (https://github.com/diwis/zdhPaperRanking) library4.\n\nThese data have been cleaned and integrated with data from COVID-19-TweetIDs and from other sources (e.g., PMC). The result was dataset of 500,314 unique articles along with relevant metadata (e.g., the underlying citation network). We utilized this dataset to produce, for each article, the values of the following impact measures:sdgfdh\n\nInfluence: Citation-based measure reflecting the total impact of an article. This is based on the PageRank3 network analysis method. In the context of citation networks, it estimates the importance of each article based on its centrality in the whole network. This measure was calculated using the PaperRanking (https://github.com/diwifss/PaperRanking) library4.sdgdInfluence_alt: Citation-based measure reflecting the total impact of an article. This is the Citation Count of each article, calculated based on the citation network between the articles contained in the BIP4COVID19 dataset.sdgf\n\nsafs Popularity: Citation-based measure reflecting the current impact of an article. This is based on the AttRank5 citation network analysis method. Methods like PageRank are biased against recently published articles (new articles need time to receive their first citations). AttRank alleviates this problem incorporating an attention-based mechanism, akin to a time-restricted version of preferential attachment, to explicitly capture a researcher's preference to read papers which received a lot of attention recently. This is why it is more suitable to capture the current "hype" of an article.asdsg\n\nsf Popularity alternative: An alternative citation-based measure reflecting the current impact of an article (this was the basic popularity measured provided by BIP4COVID19 until version 26). This is based on the RAM6 citation network analysis method. Methods like PageRank are biased against recently published articles (new articles need time to receive their first citations). RAM alleviates this problem using an approach known as "time-awareness". This is why it is more suitable to capture the current "hype" of an article. This measure was calculated using the PaperRanking (https://github.com/diwis/PaperRanking) library4.sfbSocial Media Attention: The number of tweets related to this article. Relevant data were collected from the COVID-19-TweetIDs dataset. In this version, tweets between 23/6/22-29/6/22 have been considered from the previous dataset.\n\nWe provide five CSV files, all containing the same information, however each having its entries ordered by a different impact measure. All CSV files are tab separated and have the same columns (PubMed_id, PMC_id, DOI, influence_score, popularity_alt_score, popularity score, influence_alt score, tweets count).

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Autre · Signal consensuel: Autre
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,183
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,272

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0060,000
Communication savante0,0050,001
Science ouverte0,0010,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,8170,637

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,044
Tête enseignante GPT0,265
Écart entre enseignants0,221 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; l’étiquette directe de Gemma et le classifieur distillé Codex s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreAutre

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2022
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)→Même sujetSports, Gender, and Society→Travaux en français237 207→