Peculiarities of Selected Sport Performance in Women Olympic Handball
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research background and hypothesis. Sport contest model is the main indicator of athletes’ sport performance, which allows defining sports trends in general, predicting sports results and also designing directions for training. Research aim was to determine the alteration of goals (as a key indicator) scored by women in Olympic handball in order to carry out trends of modern women handball.Research methods. Data sets were gathered from the International Handball Federation (EHF) website (http://www.ihf-info.com) covering Olympic Games since Montreal (1976) till London (2012). The data was used from all 248 matches. Statistically significant differences between the independent samples were determined using Student’s t-values of the criterion of a 95% significance level.Research results. In the period of 36 years women’s handball has become more dynamic as teams scored 10.2 goals more in London (25.1 ± 4.5) than in Montreal (14.9 ± 7.4). Teams representing the continent of Europe (23.3 ± 4.2) scored 2.2 goals more on average than teams from other continents (21.1 ± 6.1) during the Olympics. Though the mastery of European teams was better than that of others, the South Korean team, representing the Asian continent, is the first in the rating ranks scale. Discussion and conclusions. Referring to the differences between scored and missed goals by teams which were ess compared Montreal and London Olympic Games we suggest that the mastership of women’s handball is going up and becoming more equal. The phenomenon of South Korean team has allowed to state that the final results in modern women’s handball might be determined not only by the body composition but by other indices of a team or of an individual player’s fitness as well.Keywords: women’s elite sport, key indicators in team handball, national analyses.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".