Local versus global optimal sports techniques in a group of athletes
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Various optimization algorithms have been used to achieve optimal control of sports movements. Nevertheless, no local or global optimization algorithm could be the most effective for solving all optimal control problems. This study aims at comparing local and global optimal solutions in a multistart gradient-based optimization by considering actual repetitive performances of a group of athletes performing a transition move on the uneven bars. Twenty-four trials by eight national-level female gymnasts were recorded using a motion capture system, and then multistart sequential quadratic programming optimizations were performed to obtain global optimal, local optimal and suboptimal solutions. The multistart approach combined with a gradient-based algorithm did not often find the local solution to be the best and proposed several other solutions including global optimal and suboptimal techniques. The qualitative change between actual and optimal techniques provided three directions for training: to increase hip flexion-abduction, to transfer leg and arm angular momentum to the trunk and to straighten hand path to the bar.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it