MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2567219947 · doi:10.37920/sasj.2016.50.2.5

Tactics for Twenty20 cricket

2016· article· en· W2567219947 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueSouth African Statistical Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicSports Analytics and Performance
Canadian institutionsActuaSimon Fraser University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCricketEmphasis (telecommunications)RealisationVariance (accounting)SimplicityComputer scienceImplementationTelecommunicationsEconomicsSoftware engineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper explores two avenues for the modification of tactics in Twenty20 cricket. The first idea is based on the realisation that wickets are of less importance in Twenty20 cricket than in other formats of cricket (e.g. one-day cricket and Test cricket). A consequence is that batting sides in Twenty20 cricket should place more emphasis on scoring runs and less emphasis on avoiding wickets falling. On the flip side, fielding sides should place more emphasis on preventing runs and less emphasis on taking wickets. Practical implementations of this general idea are obtained by simple modifications to batting orders and bowling overs. The second idea may be applicable when there exists a sizeable mismatch between two competing teams. In this case, the weaker team may be able to improve its win probability by increasing the variance of run differential. A specific variance inflation technique which we consider is increased aggressiveness in batting.

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.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.976
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.205 · 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