Bibliographic record
Abstract
The first purpose of this study was to analyze three dimensional images and muscular activities from and non-experts when they perform the canadian canoe stroke activity. The second purpose was to find out the difference between and non-experts. The results are followings. 1. Change of angle Experts could draw longer while maintaining stability with wide kneeling and had advantage in recovery posture for less bending upper body backwards in the finish posture. non-experts had narrow kneeling and was unstable so that they did the finish posture faster than while failing to draw long. And since they bended upper body backwards in the finish posture too, it was unfavorable for non-experts in terms of time. 2. Change of angular velocity In case of catch posture, an experts angle of knee joint and hip joint became smaller as upper body leaned forwarded and have draw posture while maintaining great angular velocity. However, non-experts hip was borne backward in the catch posture unlike an expert and it was found that non-experts angle of knee joint and hip joint became bigger while failing to maintain first angular speed and slowing down gradually. 3. Muscular activity For canadian canoe stroke posture, it was found that the could use not only right and left latissimus dorsi muscle but also spinal erector muscle and right and left quadriceps muscle of thigh in the draw posture, whereas non-experts can do the draw posture depending on right and left latissimus dorsi muscle.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.014 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".