MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2052814984 · doi:10.1080/02640410400022136

Batting last as a home advantage factor in men's NCAA tournament baseball

2005· article· en· W2052814984 on OpenAlex

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

VenueJournal of Sports Sciences · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicSports Analytics and Performance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of LethbridgeMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTournamentPsychologyOrder (exchange)AdvertisingBusinessMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In baseball and softball, there is a rule that allows the home team to have the last at-bat and thus the final opportunity to win the game. However, in tournament play, this rule is often set aside and, instead, batting order is decided by other means (e.g. tournament rules, the flip of a coin). The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of the batting last rule on game outcome in NCAA men's regional tournament baseball. It was hypothesized that host (i.e. home) teams would win a greater percentage of the games in which they batted last compared with when they batted first. This hypothesis was not supported. Closer examination of the last inning of play showed home teams were no more likely to have won the game during their last bat than visitors playing other visitors. The results suggest that the batting last rule contributes minimally, if at all, to home advantage in NCAA tournament baseball.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.116
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.225 · 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