MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2594052343

Towards a First Principles Model of Curling Ice Friction and Curling Stone Dynamics

2015· article· en· W2594052343 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Edward P. Lozowski, Krzysztof Szilder, Sean Maw, Alexis Morris, L.J. Poirier, Berni Kleiner

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicWinter Sports Injuries and Performance
Canadian institutionsMount Royal UniversityNational Research Council CanadaUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurlingGeologyDynamics (music)EngineeringMechanical engineeringPhysics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Scientific investigations to measure and explain the curl (lateral displacement) of a granite stone sliding on ice in the sport of curling go back almost 100 years (Harrington, 1924). Nevertheless, some prominent researchers in the field remain baffled as to the physical explanation of this lateral displacement. And no one has thus far been able to produce a quantitative model, from first principles, that predicts all the documented characteristics of the observed curl. In this paper, we describe our progress towards producing such a numerical model. After reviewing the history of scientific research on curling, we summarize the experimental observations (quantitative and qualitative) that need to be explained by any successful model; we also summarize the areas of general agreement. Lastly, we formulate a numerical model of ice friction for a non-rotating curling stone, which successfully predicts its longitudinal deceleration. The model also successfully predicts the rotational deceleration of a non-translating curling stone. However, a numerical model for the lateral acceleration that produces the observed curl remains elusive. Copyright © 2015 by the International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers (ISOPE).

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.825
Threshold uncertainty score0.287

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations13
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNPARCSame topicWinter Sports Injuries and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207