Effect of the look‐up line on the gaze and head orientation of elite ice hockey players
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A "look-up line" (LUL) has been proposed for ice hockey, which is an orange 1 m (40') warning line (WL) painted on the ice at the base of the boards. The LUL purports to provide an early warning to players to keep their head up prior to and as they are being checked. We determined if players looked up more on a rink with the LUL compared to a traditional Control rink. Elite offensive (O) and defensive (D) players competed 1 vs. 1, while wearing an eye tracker that recorded their quiet eye (QE) and fixation and tracking (F-T) and an electrogoniometer that measured head angle. External cameras recorded skate duration during four skate phases: P1 preparation, P2 decision-making, P3 cut to boards, P4 contact. The QE was the final fixation prior to contact between O and D as they skated towards and across the WL during P3 and P4. Skate phase durations (%) did not differ by rink or rink by position. More QE and F-T occurred on the WL on the LUL rink than on the Control. The expected increase in head angle on the LUL rink did not occur during P3 or P4. Post-hoc results also showed O and D skated further from the boards on the LUL rink, suggesting the players preferred to control the puck on white ice, rather than the orange colour of the LUL rink. More research is needed to determine if these results apply to the competitive setting.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".