MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Interactive Volleyball CD-ROM - A Multimedia Tool for the Coach and Teacher

2002· article· en· W2075609716 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

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDiverse Scientific and Engineering Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoachingMultimediaComputer sciencePhysical educationMathematics educationPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Access to relevant sports information is critical in order for coaches to maximise the potential of their players (Johnson, 2001). Yet, the practical use of computers in teaching and coaching is not yet extensively used (Martens 1997). It is reasonable to presume that coaches would be more prone to use computer technology if this use allowed a productive, creative, and enjoyable environment that would result in improved training and teaching techniques. The CD-ROM ‘Interactive Volleyball: 400 Video Drills and Interactive Plans (Katz, Kilb and Raz-Liebermann, 2001) is intended to provide coaches and physical education teachers with a useful time-saving tool to carry out their duties, while accomplishing the above personal goals. According to Fischer (1998) the fundamental challenge of Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) is to design tools that can be further developed and manipulated by the users. The tools of today should relate users as ‘designers' rather then as ‘consumers' of knowledge only. Based on these considerations, the Interactive Volleyball project was undertaken. The program was designed to allow coaches and physical education teachers to use, expand, or modify the 400 drills included in the program or develop and add their own drills, depending upon the user's objectives. Volleyball was chosen as an example for developing this general model, which could serve as a prototype for other sports. The model includes three main sections, which answer the different concerns and needs of coaches and teachers. The Educational Section covers 14 theoretical subjects from coaching theory to practice advice. The second section includes a Database consisting of 400 drills covering skills at a variety of levels. The drills were designed by volleyball experts and are based on the book “400 Plus Volleyball Drills and Ideas” (Bratton & Kilb, 1985). Drills can be searched according to different criteria, and are presented in text, graphics and video formats. The third section is a Practice/Lesson Planner that enables users to develop a personalised training/teaching plan. It may be printed out for use at practice or presented using a portable computer at the practice. As part of a detailed development model, the researchers have also created a comprehensive users manual for coaches and teachers (Morey Sorrentino and Kilb, 2001). The manual provides an in-depth explanation of the program as well as detailed examples of lesson and practice plans including worksheets and overheads. The researchers are currently studying the impact of this new innovation on coaching practice and coaches' attitudes to technology. A research grant has also been received to develop a' Volleyball web-site that allows users to share drills and practice plans. The grant will enable the researchers to study coaches and teachers utilisation patterns from the website.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.894
Threshold uncertainty score0.399

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.240 · 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