MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1969857852 · doi:10.1260/1747-9541.8.2.373

Statistical Analysis of Athlete Variability Applied to Biomechanical Analysis of Ski Jumping

2013· article· en· W1969857852 on OpenAlexaff
William Montelpare, Moira McPherson, Rodney Puumala

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Sports Science & Coaching · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicWinter Sports Injuries and Performance
Canadian institutionsLakehead UniversityUniversity of Prince Edward Island
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHomoscedasticityStatisticsHeteroscedasticityEconometricsJumpingStructural equation modelingLatent variableMathematicsMulticollinearitySports biomechanicsComputer scienceRegression analysisSimulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Traditionally data processing in applied biomechanics has relied on descriptive approaches. Although these are effective exploratory techniques, they may not provide an understanding of the interaction between the variables that describe the event across repeated sampling. Factor analysis is a statistical process that allows the researcher to extend prediction beyond a univariate model to a structural equation in which dependent variables are processed against latent factors. The purpose of this investigation was to examine the application of factor analysis in the reduction of input variables to minimize inter-subject variance in structural equation modelling in biomechanics and specifically competitive ski jumping. Applying a systematic method of data processing, variables that lacked robustness were omitted; while variables that maintained homogeneity of variance across the mid-flight phase of the jump were selected. Based on this analytical approach, the final model is less influenced by confounding from the implicit variance that arises when using sequences of random variables (heteroscedasticity) within a set of predictor variables. Therefore, the final model is expected to maintain the characteristics of homoscedasticity and minimize stochastic effects.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.139
Threshold uncertainty score0.951

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.305 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations3
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Sports Science & CoachingSame topicWinter Sports Injuries and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207