MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2284689975

Exploring Visually and Hearing Precluded Free Throw Trials Among Elite Basketball Players: A Practical Training Method?

2015· article· en· W2284689975 on OpenAlexaff
Bryce Tully

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSport Psychology and Performance
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBasketballPsychologyReactionaryEliteApplied psychologyTraining (meteorology)AthletesAudiologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPhysical therapyMedicineHistoryPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A free throw often appears as one of the most basic elements in the game of basketball, however the sudden change of pace can present unique challenges at even the highest levels of play. The majority of basketball is comprised of open skills (reactionary), while the free throw is classified as a closed skill (initiated by shooter) (Williams et al., 2010, p. 336). The primary purpose of the current study was to explore the effects of a free throw training method that consisted of free throw trials without the use of vision or hearing among higher skilled and lower skilled free throw shooters, as defined by free throw percentage. This procedure had the aim of impacting and possibly shifting focus of attention by significantly reducing external factors. All participants came from varsity university and college level basketball programs and therefore were considered elite level players. Vision was removed during the shooting motion using occlusion goggles, however was restored while the ball was in midflight to provide knowledge of results. All auditory factors were significantly reduced using hearing protection earmuffs. Focus of attention and imagery were explored using an exit survey completed at the end of the study.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.755
GPT teacher head0.528
Teacher spread0.227 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSport Psychology and Performance→French-language works237,207→