MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2117700995 · doi:10.1177/1754337112444688

Water skiing biomechanics: a study of advanced skiers

2012· article· en· W2117700995 on OpenAlexafffund
Jordan Bray-Miners, R J Runciman, Gabrielle Monteith

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part P Journal of Sports Engineering and Technology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSports Performance and Training
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersUniversity of Guelph
KeywordsRopeCoachingRange (aeronautics)Alpine skiingSimulationComputer scienceMathematicsEnvironmental scienceMarine engineeringPhysical medicine and rehabilitationEngineeringStructural engineeringPsychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Six advanced slalom skiers were recruited to test four different ski designs over the summer months of 2010. An axial load transducer, boat global positioning system and skier global positioning system were used to calculate rope load and velocity for the skier during the deep water start and cutting portion of a slalom run. The methodology was designed where possible to reduce the uncontrollable factors that present themselves in the natural environment of slalom water skiing. There was statistical evidence to suggest that there was a difference in the average peak rope load produced between the skis during cutting. The typical average peak rope load and skier velocity, for an advanced skier, during the cutting portion of a ski run is in the range of 1.41–2.74 times body weight. The instrumentation was unable to provide enough evidence to suggest that there was a difference in the peak skier velocity during cutting or peak rope load during deep water starts. The typical average peak skier velocity while cutting, and rope load, during a deep water start, for an advanced skier, was in the range of 114–135% of boat speed and 1.74–2.74 times body weight. Furthermore, there was a statistical difference in the overall performance of the skiers participating in the study. The analysis techniques utilized in this study have the potential of providing more quantitative performance evaluation data than is currently available for water ski product development and coaching, and should prove useful for future performance-driven development and coaching.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part P Journal of Sports Engineering and TechnologySame topicSports Performance and TrainingFrench-language works237,207