Evaluation of the plumb-bob method for reading greens in putting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study evaluated the validity of the plumb-bob method as used to determine the break of a putt. Two separate experiments were conducted to examine the consequence of violating inherent assumptions in the method. In the first experiment, a controlled putting environment was constructed to assess the plumb-bob method in determining the break of a putt, if the slope of the green was not constant from the position of the golfer behind the ball through to the hole. It was determined that if the slope of the green beneath the golfer was different from the slope between the ball and the hole, then the plumb-bob method would provide an incorrect indication of break. The second experiment examined the ability of a golfer to stand perpendicular to a slope. Half of the participants in the study deviated by +/-1.5 degrees or greater from standing perpendicular to a slope. A + 1.5 degrees error on a 1.4 m (approximately 4.5 ft) putt translates into reading an extra 0.08 m of break and a missed putt. The plumb-bob method was found to be an invalid system for determining the break of a putt.
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 | 0.016 | 0.124 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".