Start reaction time and performance time in women’s sprint at the world championships in athletics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to assess relationships between the start reaction time and performance time in sprinters. The data for analysis came from the women’s final events of 100 m (n = 53), 200 m (n = 53) and 100 m hurdles (n = 55) at the World Athletics Championships. The evaluation of both sprinters’ start reaction time (ms) and performance time (s) were based on the IAAF Official Reports. The regression analysis revealed that the start reaction time was not associated with sprinting performance. The multiple comparisons for the female finalists reported a significantly faster start reaction time only in the 200 m race in Sydney 1997 in relation to Paris 2003 (p < 0.05) as well as significantly better performance in the 200 m event during the World Championships in Seville in 1999 in relation to the Edmonton championships in 2001 only (p < 0.05). Conclusively, in world-class female athletes the faster start reaction time did not bring any advantage at the finish line during sprint events.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".