MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2329946398 · doi:10.1177/1754337111403693

Water-skiing biomechanics: a study of intermediate skiers

2011· article· en· W2329946398 on OpenAlexafffund
R J Runciman

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part P Journal of Sports Engineering and Technology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSports Performance and Training
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersUniversity of Guelph
KeywordsRopeBiomechanicsAlpine skiingWater poloSports biomechanicsMathematicsEngineeringStructural engineeringPhysical medicine and rehabilitationSimulationMedicineAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research project was initiated to examine the water-skiing biomechanics of the intermediate skier. The hypothesis was that equipment used by the skier would have a significant effect on the loads that they encountered during skiing and on their athletic performance. Nine intermediate water skiers were instrumented and performed a series of standard water-skiing manoeuvres. Skiing participants, conditions, and equipment used for the study were chosen where possible to represent those typically encountered by the average intermediate skier. The results from the study showed that water-start rope loads of up to 2.45 times body weight were sometimes encountered and that average running rope loads of 0.35–0.41 times body weight were observed. The choice of equipment was found to make a statistically significant impact on the rope loads both for water starting and while skiing. The rope loads for starting and skiing were significantly lower when using a large square-tailed water ski that was included in this study. The intermediate skiers in this study achieved no statistically significant performance advantage when using competitive-style tapered water skis when compared with the square-tailed and larger water ski included in 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.197 · 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

Citations9
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part P Journal of Sports Engineering and TechnologySame topicSports Performance and TrainingFrench-language works237,207