Assessment of ice hockey performance in real‐game conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The aim of this study was to adapt a performance measurement tool, the Team Sport Assessment Procedure (TSAP), to ice hockey during match‐play. In addition to the six categories included in the original observational procedure, the ice hockey TSAP contained four new categories. Twelve Pee‐Wee ice hockey matches were video‐recorded during a regional championship tournament. The game play of 103 of the 11‐ to 12‐year‐old players was then analysed on video by three trained observers, based on all 10 ice hockey TSAP categories. The observational data were thereafter used to compute, for each player, a “volume of play per minute” and an efficiency index. Finally, volume of play per minute and the efficiency index were combined to obtain a composite score, the TSAP performance score. Additional measurements for each player were playing time during the observed matches, coaches’ assessments (dominant, good, less decisive), and player tournament statistics (number of points, based on assists and goals). The mean TSAP performance score was substantially higher for players rated by their coaches as dominant and for players who accumulated more than one tournament point, findings that provide evidence of the validity of the TSAP measure. In inter‐observer reliability analyses of TSAP observational data provided by the trained observersfrom video recordings, the level of agreement between each pair of observers was 80–82%. Reliability correlations over a series of three matches (r=0.26, 0.59, and 0.16 respectively) showed that the TSAP performance score was relatively unstable. Ice hockey coaches may use this adapted Team Sport Assessment Procedure to better understand the offensive implication of each player in a given match, since the 10 observational variables provide more extensive information on performance than traditional statistical measures. Due to low performance stability of the TSAP performance score, coaches ought to use the observational assessment data for the formative rather than the summative assessment of their players unless they cumulate information over a series of several matches. Formative assessment can be conducted either during training camps or even during the regular season.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".