Start reaction time and performance at the sprint events in World Athletic Championships
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to determine the relationship between the start reaction time and the performance in men sprinters who participated at the World Indoor Athletics Championships. This study’s sample was 161 athletes (n=161) who participated in the final races of 100m (n=52), 200m (n=55) and 110m hurdles (n=54) in Athens 1997, Seville 1999, Edmonton 2001, Paris 2003, Helsinki 2005, Osaka 2007 and Berlin 2009 IAAF World Athletics Championships. The evaluation of start reaction time as well as the sprinters’ performance was based on the official published reports of International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF). The MANOVA showed that significant differences between athletes’ start reaction time were identified only in 110m hurdles sprint event [F(6.43)=4.70], p<0.001. The post hoc comparisons reported that the start reaction time (125ms) in the 110m hurdles final in Athens 1997 was the best recorded in all sprint final races during the evaluated Championships from 1997 and on. Because the start reaction times in all final sprint races were recorded better in Athens 1997 than after the Paris 2003 Championships leads to the conclusion that the new IAAF false start rule has a negative effect in top-level athletes’ start reaction time.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".