MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2508205926 · doi:10.1002/9781119045144.ch8

Sport and technology

2016· other· en· W2508205926 on OpenAlexaff
Osnat Fliess‐Douer, Barry S. Mason, Larry Katz, Chi‐hung Raymond So

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMuscle activation and electromyography studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKinematicsWearable computerComputer scienceMotion analysisAthletesTracking (education)Focus (optics)Sports biomechanicsSimulationCompetition (biology)EngineeringHuman–computer interactionMultimediaArtificial intelligenceEmbedded system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Adaptive equipment such as customized wheelchairs, specific to the individual athlete and the demands of the sport, and lightweight, energy-efficient prosthetics are just two examples of technological developments that have changed the image of Paralympic competition recently. In recent years, huge developments have taken place with regard to the technology that has been used to analyze performance and feedback information to athletes and coaches. This is referred to as performance analysis and is the primary focus of this chapter. Performance is analysed by several ways including high-speed video analysis to obtain a more detailed analysis of performers’ technical skills, wearable technologies such as global positioning systems, and the usage of instrumented equipment and radio-frequency-based tracking systems such as the Local Position Measurement (LPM) system. Performance analysis based on biomechanical measures describes the kinematics (motion characteristics) or kinetics (force characteristics) of movement behavior.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.209
Threshold uncertainty score0.700

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0110.004
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2090.094

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.189 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations4
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMuscle activation and electromyography studies→French-language works237,207→