Biomechanical analysis of circles on pommel horse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to analyse the principal mechanics of circles. Seventeen university male gymnasts performed circles on an instrumented pommel horse model that enabled the pommel reaction forces to be recorded at 1000 Hz with two force plates. The circles were also videotaped using two digital video cameras operating at 60 frames per second. During circles, the vertical component of the reaction forces peaked in the double-hand support phases. Changes in the velocity of the centre of mass corresponded to the change in the tangential components of horizontal reaction forces. The velocity of the centre of mass had its peaks in the single-hand support phases and its local minimums in the double-hand support phases. The velocity of the ankles and that of the centre of mass of the head and trunk were minimal in the single-hand support phases and were maximal in the double-hand support phases. These results suggest that the circles were composed of vertical movements and two kinds of rotations: rotation of the centre of mass and rotation of the body itself about the centre of mass. These two kinds of rotations, which influence the legs' rotational velocity, are phase dependent. To further our understanding of circles, research on circles in different orientations on the pommel horse will be beneficial.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".