A Comparison of Two Swimming Start Techniques from the Omega OSB11 Starting Block
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently the world governing body of aquatic sport has approved the use of a new starting platform (Omega OSB11), and it is currently being used at all international events. Due to the recent approval, swimmers are modifying their start techniques to be able to maximize performance from the new platform. This study investigated the effectiveness of the grab and track competitive swimming start techniques off of the Omega OSB11 start block using a single-subject experimental design. A replica start block was constructed with an embedded force plate. Four subjects participated in this study; two males and two females. The protocol consisted of six starts; three of the track start technique, and three of the grab start technique. Using kinetic data collected from the force plate and signal from an electronic starter, the time to two-meters was predicted. A two-tailed paired t-test was used to determine if the track starts were significantly faster than the grab starts for each subject. Results show that all four subjects were faster to the two-meter mark using the track start technique than the grab start method. Our findings suggest that swimmers should consider using the track start over the grab start on the Omega OSB11 platform.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".