MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132633007 · doi:10.1123/tsp.15.3.289

Training Quiet Eye Improves Accuracy in the Basketball Free Throw

2001· article· en· W2132633007 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

VenueThe Sport Psychologist · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSports Performance and Training
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBasketballLeagueTraining (meteorology)PsychologyFixation (population genetics)JumpAeronauticsApplied psychologySimulationComputer scienceEngineeringMeteorologyDemographyGeographyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

University basketball players (Team A) received quiet eye (QE) training over two seasons of league play, compared to two control teams (Team B and Team C), who competed at the top of the same league but did not receive similar training. QE was defined as the player’s final fixation on the hoop or backboard prior to the shooting action. In Season 1, Team A improved significantly, Pre to Post, in experimental accuracy, QE duration, and relative shot timing but did not transfer these improvements to league play during the season. At the conclusion of Season 2, Team A improved their free throw shooting accuracy by 22.62% to 76.66%, more than Team A (66.18%) or B (74.05%). The results highlight the importance of training a sustained duration of QE on a single location on the hoop prior to the execution of the shooting action. Theoretical and applied implications of training QE are discussed, and recommendations are made for future research and training.

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)0.001
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 score0.102
Threshold uncertainty score0.444

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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.290 · 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