Effects of Situational Variables and Starting Quarter Score in the outcome of elite women’s water polo game quarters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study aimed to identify the interactive effects of Starting Quarter Score and Game Location according to Quality of Opposition in final quarters score in elite women’s water polo. Data comprised 1,828 quarters from 457 close games (goal-difference of less than 4 goals) from the Spanish water polo women’s First division (2010-2011 and 2011-2012 seasons). The interactive effects of situational variables on Starting Quarter Score according to the quality of opposition (three game contexts: HIGH vs. HIGH; HIGH vs. LOW; LOW vs. LOW) during close games were analyzed using linear regression analysis. Results showed that Starting Quarter Score reported significant effects in all the Quality of Opposition game contexts for all game quarters, and second, third, and fourth quarter. Conversely, game location showed that playing away increased by 0.68 goals in the second quarter of HIGH vs. HIGH games, and increased by 0.81 goals in the fourth quarter of LOW vs. LOW games, with respect to counterparts. Therefore, Quality of Opposition, Game Location, and Starting Quarter Score have important effects on women’s water polo game dynamics especially during the first half of close games. Finally, this study provides useful references for coaches’ plans (i.e., effective strategic approach/training proposals) to improve their women players’ performance.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".