Performance of elite seated discus throwers in F30s classes: part I: does whole body positioning matter?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Studies on the relationship between performance and design of the throwing frame have been limited and therefore require further investigation. OBJECTIVES: The specific objectives were to provide benchmark information about performance and whole body positioning of male athletes in F30s classes. STUDY DESIGN: Descriptive analysis. METHODS: A total of 48 attempts performed by 12 stationary discus throwers in F33 and F34 classes during seated discus throwing event of 2002 International Paralympic Committee Athletics World Championships were analysed in this study. The whole body positioning included overall throwing posture (i.e. number of points of contact between the thrower and the frame, body position, throwing orientation and throwing side) and lower limb placements (i.e. seating arrangements, points of contact on the both feet, type of attachment of both legs and feet). RESULTS: Three (25%), five (42%), one (8%) and three (25%) athletes used from three to six points of contact, respectively. Seven (58%) and five (42%) athletes threw from a standing or a seated position, respectively. A straddle, a stool or a chair was used by six (50%), four (33%) or two (17%) throwers, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides key information for a better understanding of the interaction between throwing technique of elite seated throwers and their throwing frame. Clinical relevance This study aimed at improving the understanding of the relationship between athletic performance and the design of the throwing frame for seated discus throwers, with a particular emphasis on the description of whole body positioning. This knowledge is particularly important in the current debate around general principles underlying the design of throwing frames and classification of athletes with a disability, including those with lower limb amputation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".