Performance dispersion for evidence-based classification of stationary throwers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background There is a need for better understanding of the dispersion of classification-related variable to develop an evidence-based classification of athletes with a disability participating in stationary throwing events. Objectives The purposes of this study are (A) to describe tools designed to comprehend and represent the dispersion of the performance between successive classes, and (B) to present this dispersion for the elite male and female stationary shot-putters who participated in Beijing 2008 Paralympic Games. Study design Retrospective study Methods This study analysed a total of 479 attempts performed by 114 male and female stationary shot-putters in three F30s (F32-F34) and six F50s (F52-F58) classes during the course of eight events during Beijing 2008 Paralympic Games. Results The average differences of best performance were 1.46±0.46 m for males between F54 and F58 classes as well as 1.06±1.18 m for females between F55 and F58 classes. The results demonstrated a linear relationship between best performance and classification while revealing two male Gold Medallists in F33 and F52 classes were outliers. Conclusions This study confirms the benefits of the comparative matrices, performance continuum and dispersion plots to comprehend classification-related variables. The work presented here represents a stepping stone into biomechanical analyses of stationary throwers, particularly on the eve of the London 2012 Paralympic Games where new evidences could be gathered.
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 | 0.050 | 0.183 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.025 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".