A Predictive Analysis on Group Exercise of Chinese Rhythmic Gymnastics at the 2008 Olympic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article has conducted a compared analysis on skills of top 6 teams at the 2006 and 2007 World Rhythmic Gymnastics Championships, and “Luck Beijing” International Invitation Match by using documents, video tapes, and statistic methods. The results show that the Chinese team has already been in the position of first level in the World and has a potential capability to be in the top 3 teams at the 2008 Olympic. However, the quality of skill execution, skill value, and art value need to be improved and renovated. Keyword: Rhythmic gymnastics, group exercise, the 29th Olympics, China, skill strength, foreground Resume: En utilisant plusieurs methodes de recherche, notamment en etudiant des documentations, des video et des statistiques, on a fait des analyses et des comparaisions sur la technique des six premieres equipes de la Coupe du monde 2006, du Championnat international de 2007 et du Tournoi international a invitation de “Good Luck Beijing“, dont le resultat montre bien que l’equipe chinoise s’est qualifiee parmi les equipes les plus competentes du monde et qu’elle a la possibilite de gagner une medaille aux Jeux Olympiques. Pourtant, il faut faire attention a la qualite de l’semble des mouvements, a la valeur technique et artistique. Mots-cles: gymnastique rythmique, competition en equipe, 29eme Jeux Olympiques, Chine, niveau technique, perspective 摘 要: 通過文獻資料、錄影、數理統計與比較研究方法，對2006年藝術體操世界盃系列賽、2007年世界錦標賽和“好運北京”國際邀請賽集體項目前六名隊伍的技術進行比較分析，結果表明：中國藝術體操集體項目已具有世界一流水平和爭奪 08年奧運會前3名的實力，但是，在成套動作完成品質、技術價值和藝術價值方面有待進一步加強和突破。 關鍵詞: 藝術體操；集體專案；29屆奧運會；中國；技術實力；前景
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".