Performance of elite seated discus throwers in F30s classes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Studies on the relationship between performance and design of the throwing frame have been limited. Part I provided only a description of the whole body positioning. OBJECTIVES: The specific objectives were (a) to benchmark feet positioning characteristics (i.e. position, spacing and orientation) and (b) to investigate the relationship between performance and these characteristics for male seated discus throwers in F30s classes. STUDY DESIGN: Descriptive analysis. METHODS: A total of 48 attempts performed by 12 stationary discus throwers in F33 and F34 classes during seated discus throwing event of 2002 International Paralympic Committee Athletics World Championships were analysed in this study. Feet positioning was characterised by tridimensional data of the front and back feet position as well as spacing and orientation corresponding to the distance between and the angle made by both feet, respectively. RESULTS: Only 4 of 30 feet positioning characteristics presented a coefficient correlation superior to 0.5, including the feet spacing on mediolateral and anteroposterior axes in F34 class as well as the back foot position and feet spacing on mediolateral axis in F33 class. CONCLUSIONS: This study provided key information for a better understanding of the interaction between throwing technique of elite seated throwers and their throwing frame. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study aimed at improving the understanding of the relationship between performance and the design of the throwing frame of seated discus throwers, with a particular emphasis on the importance of feet positioning. This knowledge is particularly important in the current debate around general principles underlying design of throwing frame and classification of athletes with a disability, including those with lower limb amputation.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".