Comparison and analysis of three different methods to evaluate vertical jump height
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to compare three methods to assess vertical jump height, to determine their limitations and to propose solutions to mitigate their effects. The chosen methods were the contact mat, the optical system and the Sargent jump. The testing environment was designed such that all three systems simultaneously measured the vertical jump height. A total of 41 kinesiology students (18 women, 23 men, mean age 23·2 ± 4·5 years) participated in this study. Data show that the contact mat and the optical system essentially provide similar results (P = 0·912) and that the correlation coefficient between the two systems was 0·972 (r(2) = 0·944). However, it was found that the Sargent jump has a tendency to overestimate the height, providing a measurement that is significantly different from the other two methods as the jumps are higher than 30·64 cm (P = 0·044). Through the design of the experiment, several sources of errors were identified and mathematically modelled. These sources include optical sensor placement, flat-footed landing and hip/knee bend. Whenever possible, the errors were quantified and solutions were proposed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it