Bibliographic record
Abstract
A quasi-realistic mathematical model of 100 m sprint performances is modified to simulate the 200 m race, a portion of which is run around a curve. The calculated effects of wind are complex functions of the wind direction and the lane in which the athlete is running. It is shown that wind and altitude-assisted marks for the 200 m are in some cases significantly higher than the corresponding adjustments for the 100 m sprint under similar conditions. The estimated advantage of a 2 m s1 tail wind is between 0.090.14 s, with the greater advantage going to the runner in the outside lane. At higher altitudes (>2000 m), these corrections can rise to over 0.3 s. Crosswinds can further enhance the performance by over 0.5 s due to decreased drag forces around the curve. A consequence of these results suggests that record ratification procedures for such performances be reconsidered. The model is also used to study Michael Johnson's world record race of 19.32 s from the 1996 Olympic Games in Atlanta, Georgia. PACS No.: 01.80.L
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".