Circles on pommel horse with a suspended aid: Influence of expertise
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the third study of this series, we examined how circles with a suspended aid would vary depending of the gymnast's level of expertise. We analysed circles with the aid performed by three groups of eight gymnasts: expert, intermediate, and developing groups. The gymnasts for the expert and intermediate groups were selected from the previous studies based on judges' evaluation of their non-aid circles. The developing group of eight gymnasts, who were unable to perform circles on pommel horse without an aid, were added to this study and performed three sets of 10 circles on the pommel horse with the aid. Discriminative biomechanical variables identified in the previous two studies were used to compare circles with the aid among the three groups. As a result, the expert group demonstrated a larger pommel reaction force and a smaller aid reaction force than the other two groups, implying that they were less dependent on the aid. The smaller aid reaction force resulted in a smaller net hip joint moment. Furthermore, the expert group showed a shorter total duration and a greater shoulder excursion. In summary, the suspended aid can be used in a progressive manner depending on the gymnast's level of expertise.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".