MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2036071298 · doi:10.1080/17461390802284456

Assessment of ice hockey performance in real‐game conditions

2008· article· en· W2036071298 on OpenAlex
Luc Nadeau, Paul Godbout, Jean‐François Richard

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

VenueEuropean Journal of Sport Science · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSports injuries and prevention
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MonctonUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIce hockeyObservational studyChampionshipPsychologyTournamentApplied psychologyPhysical therapyStatisticsPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMathematicsMedicineAdvertising

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.002
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 score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.198

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.294 · 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