MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1961673983 · doi:10.1109/crv.2005.17

Analysis of Player Actions in Selected Hockey Game Situations

2005· article· en· W1961673983 on OpenAlexaff
Fahong Li, Robert J. Woodham

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTime Series Analysis and Forecasting
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceTrajectoryAnimationPossession (linguistics)Motion captureCharacter animationHuman–computer interactionComputer animationArtificial intelligenceMotion (physics)Computer graphics (images)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a proof of concept system to represent and reason about hockey play. The system takes as input player motion trajectory data tracked from game video and supported by knowledge of hockey strategy, game situation and specific player profiles. The raw motion trajectory data consists of space-time point sequences of player position registered to rink coordinates. The raw data is augmented with knowledge of forward/backward skating, possession of the puck and specific player attributes (e.g., shoots left, shoots right). We use a finite state machine (FSM) model to represent our total knowledge of given situations and develop evaluation functions for primitive hockey behaviours (e.g., pass, shot). Based on the augmented trajectory data, the FSMs and the evaluation functions, we describe what happened in each identified situation, assess the outcome, estimate when and where key play choices were made, and attempt to predict whether better alternatives were available to achieve understood goals. A textual natural language description and a simple ID graphic animation of the analysis are produced as the output. The design is flexible to allow the substitution of different analysis modules and extensible to allow the inclusion of additional hockey situations.

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)0.004
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Citations7
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTime Series Analysis and ForecastingFrench-language works237,207