Ways of settling a judo fight at consecutive stages of sports competitions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: At successive stages of sports competition, judo contestants aim at achieving the best sports result. Each fight can be resolved by an effectively executed attack before the regular time (ippon or double waza-ari) or by a better score for efficient attacks (waza-ari or yuko). The victory can also be achieved for penalties awarded to the opponent (shido) or when he/she is disqualified for infractions of the sports rules of the International Judo Federation. Material/Methods: The research material was based on the analysis of bouts fought by male competitors during the World Championships in 2014 and 2015. Results: The results of the conducted analysis allow concluding that at subsequent stages of sports competition the number of fights decided by efficiently executed techniques evaluated as ippon or double waza-ari decreased, just as the number of fights won through the opponent’s disqualification. On the other hand, the number of decisions based on a better score for efficient attacks and the number of fights in which athletes won due to penalties given to their opponents increased. Conclusions: At all the analysed stages of competitions, one quarter of the bouts was decided by penalties which were a consequence of committed infractions.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".