MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2059055128 · doi:10.1080/026404102320675620

Sport competition as a dynamical self-organizing system

2002· article· en· W2059055128 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 · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicComplex Systems and Time Series Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
FundersNational Center for Research Resources
KeywordsCONTESTCompetition (biology)Dynamical systems theorySquashComputer sciencePsychologyData scienceOperations researchMathematicsPolitical sciencePhysicsEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The existence of structure in sport competition is implicated in the widespread practice of using the information gathered from a past contest to prepare for a future contest. Based on this reasoning, we previously analysed squash match-play for evidence of signature traits from among the stochastic relations between the various types of shot. The mixed findings from these analyses led us to re-analyse squash match-play as a dynamical system. Here, we extend this line of investigation with some suggestions as to how various sports might be described further within this theoretical framework. We offer some examples of dynamical interactions in dyadic (i.e. one vs one) and team (e.g. many vs many) sports, as well as some predictions from a dynamical systems analysis for these types of sports contests. This paper should serve to initiate further research into the complex interactions that occur in sport competition.

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)0.001
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.714
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.175 · 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