Investigating the position of manufacturers' binding positions of alpine skis with similar shape and flexural rigidity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate the manufacturers’ binding positions of skis of similar shape and flexural rigidity. The shape of eight skis from five different manufacturers was characterized by six primary geometric variables. The skis were then subjected to a mechanical three‐point bend test, and the resulting deformation was measured using three high‐speed cameras. The Euler‐Bernoulli equation was used to calculate the distributed flexural rigidity (E[x]I[x]) from the shape of the deformed ski, where E is elasticity, I is inertia, and x is the longitudinal position along the ski's length. Two null hypotheses were tested: skis that are similar in shape will have similar binding positions, and skis that have similar flexural rigidities will have similar binding positions. The results of the study identified two different groups of skis that were nearly identical in geometry and whose patterns of flexural rigidity nearly coincided; however, the skis in each of the two groups had substantially different binding positions. The inconsistent binding position of skis that were otherwise similar in shape and in flexural rigidity manifests as a confounding variable in experimental studies. If ski shape and flexural rigidity are maintained as control variables, efforts need to be made to measure and control binding position, so as not to compromise the internal validity of the experimental design in alpine skiing research.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".