MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1991196965 · doi:10.3200/jmbr.39.6.481-490

Examining Action Effects in the Execution of a Skilled Soccer Kick by Using Erroneous Feedback

2007· article· en· W1991196965 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Motor Behavior · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSport Psychology and Performance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBall (mathematics)PsychologyVisual feedbackPhysical medicine and rehabilitationTrajectoryComputer scienceSimulationComputer visionMathematicsMedicinePhysicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The authors examined the role of action effects (i.e., ball trajectory) during the performance of a soccer kick. Participants were 20 expert players who kicked a ball over a height barrier toward a ground-level target. The authors occluded participants' vision of the ball trajectory after foot-to-ball contact. Participants in a 1st group received erroneous feedback from a video that showed a ball-trajectory apex approximately 75 cm lower than that of their actual kick, although the ball's landing position was unaltered. Participants in a 2nd group received correct video feedback of both the ball trajectory and the landing position. The erroneous-feedback group showed a significant bias toward higher ball trajectories than did the correct-feedback group. The authors conclude that performers at high levels of skill use the visual consequences of the action to plan and execute an action.

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 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)0.001
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 score0.308
Threshold uncertainty score0.347

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.320 · 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