MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1899765755 · doi:10.1139/cjp-2015-0378

The coefficient of restitution of pressurized balls: a mechanistic model

2015· article· en· W1899765755 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Alex Georgallas, Gaëtan Landry

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSports Dynamics and Biomechanics
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersDalhousie University
KeywordsCoefficient of restitutionPhysicsMechanicsRestitutionSimple (philosophy)Ball (mathematics)Statistical physicsThermodynamicsClassical mechanicsGeometryMathematicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pressurized, inflated balls used in professional sports are regulated so that their behaviour upon impact can be anticipated and allow the game to have its distinctive character. However, the dynamics governing the impacts of such balls, even on stationary hard surfaces, can be extremely complex. The energy transformations, which arise from the compression of the gas within the ball and from the shear forces associated with the deformation of the wall, are examined in this paper. We develop a simple mechanistic model of the dependence of the coefficient of restitution, e, upon both the gauge pressure, PG, of the gas and the shear modulus, G, of the wall. The model is validated using the results from a simple series of experiments using three different sports balls. The fits to the data are extremely good for PG > 25 kPa and consistent values are obtained for the value of G for the wall material. As far as the authors can tell, this simple, mechanistic model of the pressure dependence of the coefficient of restitution is the first in the literature.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.178 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations9
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of PhysicsSame topicSports Dynamics and BiomechanicsFrench-language works237,207