The role of external action effects in the execution of a soccer kick: a comparison across skill level
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The importance of action-effects for the performance of a soccer kick was examined. Novice, intermediate, and skilled players performed a soccer chip task with the intention of getting the ball over a height barrier to a near or far ground-level target under three conditions: full vision, no vision following ball contact with and without knowledge of results (KR). The removal of vision of the ball trajectory resulted in increased radial error, irrespective of the presence or absence of KR but in a skill-level and target dependent manner. At the near target, novice participants relied on ball trajectory information. Intermediate performers were affected by its removal across both target conditions, whereas skilled participants were not affected by the removal of ball vision. Variability in knee-ankle coordination significantly decreased when vision of the ball trajectory was removed, irrespective of KR and skill level. Although across skill level there was evidence that action-effects information is used to execute the action when it is available, only at the lower levels of skill did this information aid outcome attainment. There was no evidence to suggest that with increasing skill the dependence on this information increases
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".