Head–Putter Coordination Patterns in Expert and Less Skilled Golfers
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The authors examined the patterns of expert and less skilled golfers in putting on an indoor surface to 1 of 3 circular targets (1, 3, and 5 m away) in trials with a ball present (and putted) or not present (a practice stroke). As expected, the experts performed better than the less skilled golfers on a large number of outcome and kinematic measures. Displacement and velocity profiles of the head and putter revealed high positive correlations for the less skilled golfers, indicating a dominant allocentric coordination pattern, but high negative correlations for the expert golfers, indicating a dominant egocentric coordination pattern. The observed coordination patterns did not interact with the distance of the intended putt or the presence/absence of a ball. These findings offer preliminary evidence that, although contrary to traditional beliefs, fundamental differences exist in putting coordination modes between expert and less skilled golfers.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it