MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2290179677 · doi:10.1080/02640414.2016.1150600

Major League Baseball pace-of-play rules and their influence on predicted muscle fatigue during simulated baseball games

2016· article· en· W2290179677 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Sonne, Peter J. Keir

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sports Sciences · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicShoulder Injury and Treatment
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPaceLeagueMuscle fatiguePhysical medicine and rehabilitationElbowPhysical therapyMedicineElectromyographySurgeryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Major League Baseball (MLB) has proposed rule changes to speed up baseball games. Reducing the time between pitches may impair recovery from fatigue. Fatigue is a known precursor to injury and may jeopardise joint stability. This study examined how fatigue accumulated during baseball games and how different pace of play initiatives may influence fatigue. Pitcher data were retrieved from a public database. A predictive model of muscle fatigue estimated muscle fatigue in 8 arm muscles. A self-selected pace (22.7 s), 12 s pace (Rule 8.04 from the MLB) and a 20 s rest (a pitch clock examined in the 2014 Arizona Fall League (AFL)) were examined. Significantly more muscle fatigue existed in both the AFL and Rule 8.04 conditions, when compared to the self-selected pace condition (5.01 ± 1.73%, 3.95 ± 1.20% and 3.70 ± 1.10% MVC force lost, respectively). Elevated levels of muscle fatigue are predicted in the flexor-pronator mass, which is responsible for providing elbow stability. Reduced effectiveness of the flexor-pronator mass may reduce the active contributions to joint rotational stiffness, increasing strain on the ulnar collateral ligament (UCL) and possibly increasing injury risk.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations29
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Sports SciencesSame topicShoulder Injury and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207