Space–time coordination dynamics in basketball: Part 1. Intra- and inter-couplings among player dyads
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examined space-time patterns of basketball players during competition by analysing movement data obtained from six game sequences. Strong in-phase relations in the longitudinal (basket-to-basket) direction were observed for all playing dyads, especially player-opponent dyads matched for playing position, indicating that these movements were very constrained by the game demands. Similar findings for in-phase relations were observed for the most part in the lateral direction, the main exception being dyads comprising the two wing players from the same team. These dyads instead demonstrated strong attractions to anti-phase, a consequence perhaps of seeking to increase and decrease team width in tandem. Single instances from select dyads and game sequences demonstrated further evidence of phase stabilities and phase transitions on some occasions. Together, these findings demonstrate that space-time movement patterns of playing dyads in basketball, while unique, nonetheless conform to a uniform description in keeping with universal principles of dynamical self-organizing systems as hypothesized.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it