DÜNYA BAYANLAR GÜREŞ ŞAMPİYONASI MÜSABAKA TEKNİK ANALİZİ / THE TECHNICAL ANALYSIS OF WORLD WOMEN WRESTLING CHAMPIONSHIP
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Çalışmanın amacı, 2005 yılında Budapeşte’ de yapılan Dünya Bayanlar Güreş Şampiyonasımüsabaka teknik analizi ve yeni kurallara göre başarıda etken olan teknik kriterlerin incelenmesidir.Bu çalışma için Dünya Bayanlar Güreş Şampiyonasında toplam 188 güreş müsabakasıkamera ile filme alınarak videoda analiz edildi. Şampiyonada tüm müsabakalar ile Türk MilliTakımının yaptığı müsabakalarda dönem dağılımı, müsabaka bitiş şekli ve süresi ortalama ve yüzdeolarak sunuldu.Teknik üstünlükle biten maç sayısı % 12,24 iken tuş yapılan maç sayısı %24,47 vesayı ile yaklaşık %63’ü bitmiştir. Maç başına toplamda her iki güreşçinin aldığı puan elemelerde 7,68ve finallerde 8,46 olarak bulunmuştur. İlk periyotta biten maç oranı toplamda %10,11, ikinci periyotta%68,09 ve 3.periyoda ise %21,81 şeklindedir. Galip gelenlerin ortalama puanı mağlup olanlarınortalama puanından 5,54 daha fazladır. Tüm maçlarda maç başına düşen süre ortalama olarak 4,21dakikadır. Türk güreşçileri; İngiliz, İspanyol ve Hollandalı güreşçilerden puan alınırken Cin, Kanadave Rus güreşçilerden hiç puan alamamıştır.Maç başına ortalama yaklaşık 8 puan düşmüştür. Maçların süresi dakika olarak azalmıştır.Eski kurallara oranla maç başına düşen puan sayısı pek değişmemiştir. Türkiye bayan güreşininyeniden bir gözden geçirilmesi gerekliliği doğmuştur.Anahtar Kelimeler: Güreş, Teknik, Puan, Periyot ABSTRACTThe aim of this study is to analyze the technical aspects of the competitions and the technicalcriteria affecting the success according to the new rules.188 free-style competitions during the world free style wrestling championship wererecorded and the analyses were done by these recordings. The techniques, period distribution, thefinishing form and time of a competition applied by Turkish National Team and in all competitionswere given both in rational and in percentageThe competitions finished with Technique Superiority was %12.24 with us %24.47 and withpoints %63.The average points taken in the eliminations was 7.68 and in finals 8.46. The average ofthe competitions finished in the first period was %10.11, in the second period %68.09 and in the thirdperiod %21.81.The average points of the winners were more than 5.54 points against the losers. Theaverage time was 4.21 minutes for each competition. The Turkish wrestlers took points from theEnglish, the Spanish and the Dutch wrestlers whereas they could not take any points from theChinese, Canadian and the Russian wrestlers.The average point for each competition was 8.The became less. The average points taken inthe competition remained the same comparing to the ones with the former rules. It is necessary to gothrough the Turkish women wrestling.Key Worlds: Wrestling, Technique, Points, Period
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.030 | 0.004 |
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".