Comparison of Rally Time in XXIX Beijing (2008) and XXVIII Athens (2004) Olympic Table Tennis Tournaments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The XXIX Olympic games of Beijing (2008) are the second Olympic tournaments organized under the modification of Table Tennis regulations (series of two serves, 11 th points set). The purpose of this study was to compare the rally time of the Beijing (2008) and Athens (2004) Olympic tournaments. Rally time differences for Men and Women in both Olympic tournaments concerning the first round up to the quarter finals were also studied. The sample of the study was the total number of single games that were held during the Olympic Games in Beijing (n=119, male=60 & female=59). The results showed that rally time oscillated from 4:48'' to 7:31''in total. Men's rally time in set fluctuated from 4:48 to 5:33 and Women's from 5:00 to 7:31. The two factors repeated measures analysis of variance (Olympic tournaments x rounds) was used in order to determine if significant variance existed between Olympic tournaments. The analysis of data revealed that Women's set rally time increased in Beijing (2008). Significant differences were found for Women in Olympic tournaments (p<0.05) and also in the first three rounds of the Beijing Olympic Tournament (p<0.05). These findings indicate that longer rally time in table tennis should be taken in consideration and should be examined more in next high level tournaments especially after the prohibition of speed glue. Thus, knowledge of the above characteristics can help coaches to provide the appropriate methods for table tennis 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".