MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1839889080

Optimal time of the attacking action in kendo

2015· article· en· W1839889080 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
James Gordon Ogle, Peter O’Donoghue

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSports Performance and Training
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompetitor analysisQuarter (Canadian coin)EliteAction (physics)EconomicsPolitical scienceHistoryPhysicsLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this study was to investigate whether the time of an attacking action influenced the success rate of ippon (valid point) in international, elite level kendo. Selected videos of elite kendo competitors were viewed using Kinovea where the time of the attacking action could be analysed frame by frame. Movements were measured from the start of the forward or downward movement of the shinai until impact or until the point of the shinai had passed through the target area if the cut was a complete miss. There were 7.6% of attacks of 0.09s-0.12s and 6.5% of attacks of 0.13s-0.15s that led to ippon. This was a greater success rate than shorter or longer attacks. The timings of attacks performed by competitors who reached the quarter finals of tournaments were significantly faster (p < 0.001) and significantly more consistent (p = 0.006) than those performed by competitors eliminated prior to the quarter finals. These results suggest there is an optimal timing range in kendo that produces a winning strike. Mechanisms are needed to evaluate performance indicators where there are optimal values maximise the chance of success.

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)0.002
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.087
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.248 · 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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSports Performance and Training→French-language works237,207→