Influencia de coger el primer balón sobre el marcador parcial y final durante el Campeonato del Mundo de Waterpolo de 2005 Influence to Take the First Ball on the Partial and Final Score During the 2005 Water Polo World Championship
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to analyze the influence to take the first ball on the partial and final score in water polo. The 96 matches disputed by team’s participant in the 2005 Water Polo World Championship, celebrated in Montreal in 2005, were recorded. The samples were 384 actions of beginning of every game period. The observational methodology was applied. The variables analyzed were: a) the game period, b) team that won the first possession, c) period result and d) match final score. Were used the Chi-square test and the Gamma statistical association. The 47.6% of men’s teams and 51.6% of the female teams who got the first ball possession enjoyed a favourable partial result along the periods. The female’s teams that won more than 50% of the matches took the first ball in more than two periods. Take the first ball in a greater number of periods is related to a favourable partial score in both categories and with a favourable final score in female category. It suggests a practical proposal to address this playing situation 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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".