MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Hurdle Preflight in Springboard Diving: A Case of Diminishing Returns

2002· article· en· W2062791981 on OpenAlexaff
Doris I. Miller, Aleksandra Zecevic, Graham W. Taylor

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Quarterly for Exercise and Sport · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSports Performance and Training
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAeronauticsComputer scienceOperations managementEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Attempts to increase dive height by introducing a period of flight in the final approach step preceding the hurdle of dives from forward and reverse groups were investigated. One study involved 11 collegiate-level divers experienced in both traditional and hurdle preflight techniques. In a second study, dives executed by 9 national-level women were compared. Dives with a hurdle preflight had shorter final approach steps and greater hurdle flight durations. Flight time differences in favor of hurdle preflight techniques diminished from final approach step through hurdle flight to dive flight. Although the collegiate-level divers had longer dive flight times when using a hurdle preflight, it was suggested that the costs of these techniques may outweigh their potential benefits.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.352
Threshold uncertainty score0.439

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.278 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch Quarterly for Exercise and SportSame topicSports Performance and TrainingFrench-language works237,207