MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2366128575

Comparative Analysis on Li Na and Her Major Rival's Run Characteristics in 2011 Australian Open

2012· article· en· W2366128575 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Junyan Huang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Guizhou Normal University · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicVideo Analysis and Summarization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuarter (Canadian coin)Object (grammar)Research ObjectComputer scienceStatisticsPsychologyEconometricsMathematicsSociologyHistoryArtificial intelligenceRegional scienceArchaeology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years,the research on tennis techniques and tactics in how to score or improve the technical ability of the individual,especially on runs is almost zero,so this paper employed video observation method,mathematical statistics,and so on,to analyze Li Na in the 2011 Australian Open.Take the first round,quarter-final,semi-finals and the final video as the research object,the authors did a comprehensive analysis of the characteristics of the reason,and to explore and to reveal the loss and her rivals in the structure of the existence of law.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.363

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Guizhou Normal UniversitySame topicVideo Analysis and SummarizationFrench-language works237,207